{"id":179011,"date":"2009-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-17T01:11:43","modified_gmt":"2018-10-16T19:41:43","slug":"the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank … vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank … vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S.J. Vazifdar<\/div>\n
                                          1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    The Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd.            ....Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                         Versus\n\n    State of Maharashtra & Ors.                            ....R espondents\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                                  \n                                 \n    Mr.Vishal Ghosalkar for the Petitioner.\n\n    Mr.Milind More, A. G. P.  for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.\n            \n\n\n    Mr.M. C. Shah with Mr.Satyajeet Mirajkar  for  Respondent Nos.4,\n         \n\n\n\n    6 and 7.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr.A. P. Vanarse for Respondent No.5(a) in Writ Petition No.2618\n\n    of 2008.\n\n                                      CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                      DATED  : 4TH APRIL, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT  :\n<\/p>\n
    1.             In   1964   the   petitioner   was   registered   under   the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra   Co-Operative   Societies   Act,   1960   (MCS   Act).   On<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
    11.1.2007     the    petitioner      was converted into a multi State<\/p>\n
    co-operative society.\n<\/p>\n
                  Respondent nos. 2 and 3       are         the         Assistant<\/p>\n
    Registrar co-operative societies and the Divisional Joint Registrar<\/p>\n
    co-operative societies respectively under the MCS Act.\n<\/p>\n
                  Respondent no.4, Mrs.Seema Ramesh Gharage is the<\/p>\n
    principal  debtor   who   had   availed   of   facilities   from  the   petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    Original respondent no.5 and respondent nos.6 and 7 are sureties<\/p>\n
    in respect of the loan advanced by the petitioner to respondent no<\/p>\n
    4. Respondent nos. 5(a) to (d)  are the heirs of original respondent<\/p>\n
    no.5.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            By     an order dated 11.7.2006 the Assistant Registrar<\/p>\n
    Co-operative Societies, respondent no.2 dismissed the petitioners<\/p>\n
    application for a recovery certificate under section 101 of the MCS<\/p>\n
    Act.   The   Petitioner   challenged   this   order   by   filing   a   revision<\/p>\n
    application   under section  154  of  the  MCS  Act.    This  application<\/p>\n
    was rejected by the impugned order. By the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
    14.8.2008    the   Divisional   Joint   Registrar,   respondent  no.   3   held<\/p>\n
    that   he   is   not   empowered   to   entertain   and   decide   matters<\/p>\n
    pertaining   to   any   multi   State   co-operative   society.     He   therefore<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
    dismissed the petitioners application for revision under section 154<\/p>\n
    of the MCS Act for want of jurisdiction.  This order was based on a<\/p>\n
    judgment of a Division Bench of this court which I will refer to later.\n<\/p>\n
    3.           The case in a nutshell is this.   In 1964 the petitioner<\/p>\n
    was registered under the MCS Act.  During the subsistence of this<\/p>\n
    registration the petitioner filed recovery proceedings under section<\/p>\n
    101 of the MCS Act against respondent nos. 4 to 7 and the same<\/p>\n
    having been rejected by the second respondent, the petitioner  filed<\/p>\n
    an application for review under section 154 of that   Act.  However<\/p>\n
    on 11.1.2007 during the pendency of the revision application, the<\/p>\n
    petitioner   was   converted   into   a   multi   State   co-operative   society<\/p>\n
    within the    meaning   of  the   expression  in    the    Multi-State<\/p>\n
    Co-operative Societies Act,2002 (Multi-State Act). Thereupon the<\/p>\n
    petitioner   stood   registered   under   the   Multi-State   Act   and   its<\/p>\n
    registration   under   the   MCS   Act   was   cancelled.   In   view   thereof<\/p>\n
    respondents no  3 rejected  the petitioners  revision application  on<\/p>\n
    the ground  that  the authorities  under the MCS Act  did  not  have<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction to decide proceedings in respect of societies registered<\/p>\n
    under the Multi-State Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.           In   terms   of   a   sanction   letter   dated   10.4.2001   the<\/p>\n
    petitioner   granted   respondent   no.4   a   cash   credit   facility   of<\/p>\n
    Rs.50,00,000.     To   secure   the   due   repayment   of   the   said   loan<\/p>\n
    respondents   no.4   hypothecated   various   goods   in   favour   of   the<\/p>\n
    petitioner ; Respondent nos.4 and 7 executed a memorandum of<\/p>\n
    equitable mortgage in respect of certain immovable properties and<\/p>\n
    Respondent nos.4 to 7 also executed a demand promissory note<\/p>\n
    and  other   documents   undertaking   the  responsibility  to  repay  the<\/p>\n
    said money jointly and\/or severally.\n<\/p>\n
                 On 10.11.2004 the petitioner filed recovery proceedings<\/p>\n
    under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act as<\/p>\n
    respondent   nos.4   to   7   failed   and   neglected   to   repay   the   loan<\/p>\n
    despite   repeated   demands.   Respondent   no.2,   the   Assistant<\/p>\n
    Registrar by an order and judgement dated 11.7.2006 rejected the<\/p>\n
    application.   As the only question raised in this petition is one of<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction it is not necessary to consider the grounds on which this<\/p>\n
    judgement was based.\n<\/p>\n
                 On   11.9.2006   the   petitioner   filed   an   application   for<\/p>\n
    review under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies<\/p>\n
    Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 On 11.1.2007 the petitioner was converted into a multi-\n<\/p>\n
    State co-operative society within the meaning of that expression in<\/p>\n
    The   Multi-State   Co-operative   Societies   Act,   2002.   This   was<\/p>\n
    pursuant to section 22 of the Multi-State Act.\n<\/p>\n
                 On 14.8.2008 respondents no. 3 passed the impugned<\/p>\n
    order rejecting the petitioners  application for review on the ground<\/p>\n
    that     the      petitioner      having      been converted into a multi-\n<\/p>\n
    State co-operative society prior to the  date  of the judgement  he<\/p>\n
    had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the review application<\/p>\n
    which was filed under the MCS Act.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           The following question therefore falls for consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
                 Whether the Revisionary Authority has no jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
    entertain   and   decide   an   application   under   section   154   of   the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra  Co-operative   Societies   Act,   1960   filed   by   a   society<\/p>\n
    registered under that Act when the applications under sections 101<\/p>\n
    and   154   were   filed   but   was   converted   into   a   multi-State   co-\n<\/p>\n
    operative   society   during   the   pendency   of   the   application   for<\/p>\n
    revision whereupon the applicant was registered under the multi-\n<\/p>\n
    State   Co-operative   Societies   Act   and   its  registration  under   the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
    6.    Section 154 of the MCS Act reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
          “154.   Revisionary   powers   of   State   Government
\n          and   Registrar.-   The   State   Government   or   the<\/p>\n
          Registrar, suo motu or on an application, may call
\n          for   and   examine   the   record   of   any   inquiry   or<\/p>\n
          proceedings of any   matter,   other   than   those
\n          referred   to   in     sub-section   (9)   of   section   149,
\n          where any decision or order has been passed by
\n          any   subordinate   officer,   and   no   appeal   lies<\/p>\n
          against such decision or order, for the purpose of
\n          satisfying   themselves   as   to   the   legality   or
\n          propriety of any such decision or order, and as to
\n          the regularity of such proceedings, if in any case,<\/p>\n
          it   appears   to   the   State   Government,   or   the
\n          Registrar, that any decision or order so called for<\/p>\n
          should   be   modified,   annulled   or   reversed,   the
\n          State Government or the Registrar, as the case
\n          may   be,   may,   after   giving   the   person   affected<\/p>\n
          thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such
\n          orders thereon as to it or him may seem just.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (2) Under this section, the revision shall lie to the
\n          State   Government   if   the   decision   or   order   is<\/p>\n
          passed by the Registrar, the Additional Registrar
\n          or a Joint Registrar, and to the Registrar if passed
\n          by any other officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (2A)   No   application   for   revision   shall   be<\/p>\n
          entertained against the recovery certificate issued
\n          by   the   Registrar   under   section   101   unless   the
\n          applicant   deposits   with   the   concerned   society,
\n          fifty   percent,   amount   of   the   total   amount   of<\/p>\n
          recoverable dues.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (3)   No   application   for   revision   shall   be
\n          entertained, if made after two months of the date
\n          of   communication   of   the   decision   or   order.   The
\n          revisional   authority   may   entertain   any   such
\n          application   made   after   such   period,   if   the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
               applicant satisfies it that he had sufficient cause
\n               for not making the application within such period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (4) The State Government may, by order, direct<\/p>\n
               that   the   powers   conferred   on   it   by   this   section
\n               shall,   in   such   circumstances   and   under   such<\/p>\n
               conditions   if   any,   as   may   be   specified   in   the
\n               direction,  be  exercised  also  by an officer  of the
\n               rank of Secretary to Government.” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Section 22    of  the Multi State Co-Operative Societies<\/p>\n
    Act, 2002 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
               22.  Conversion of a co-operative society into a
\n               multi-State co-operative society.–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (1)   A     co-operative   society   may,   by   an   amend-
\n               ment   of   its   bye-laws,   extend   its   jurisdiction   and<\/p>\n
               convert itself into a multi-State co-operative soci-
\n               ety :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Provided that no such amendment of bye-laws of
\n               a co-operative society shall be valid unless it has<\/p>\n
               been registered by the Central Registrar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2)  (a)  Every  proposal  for   such amendment
\n               of     bye-laws     shall be forwarded to the Central<\/p>\n
               Registrar in accordance       with     the provisions
\n               contained in sub-section (4) of Section 11.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (b) If  the  Central Registrar, after  consulting the <\/p>\n
               Registrars     of     Co-operative   Societies   of   the
\n               States
\n               concerned,  has     satisfied     himself  that    such
\n               amendment–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (i) fulfils the   requirements of the members being
\n               from more than one State;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
     (ii) is in accordance with the provisions contained
\n     in   sub-section   (4) of Section 11, he may regis-
\n     ter the   amendment   within   a  period of six
\n     months from the date of receipt thereof by him :\n<\/p>\n
     Provided       that    no co-operative society shall<\/p>\n
     be deemed to have   been converted into a multi-
\n     State      co-operative  society    on    any ground
\n     whatsoever unless such society is  registered  as
\n     a multi-State co-operative society.\n<\/p>\n
     (3) The  Central  Registrar   shall    forward to the
\n     co-operative   society   a   copy   of   the   registered
\n     amendment together with a certificate signed by<\/p>\n
     him    and  such certificate shall be conclusive evi-
\n     dence that the amendment has been registered.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) Where the Central Registrar refuses to regis-\n<\/p>\n
     ter an amendment of the bye-laws of a co-opera-
\n     tive society, he shall communicate the order of re-
\n     fusal together with     the     reasons    therefor  to
\n     the society in the manner prescribed within seven<\/p>\n
     days from the date of refusal.\n<\/p>\n
       (5) (a) Once the  amendment of bye-laws has
\n       been registered    by  the  Central       Registrar,
\n       the co-operative society   shall,   as    from
\n       the date of registration of amendment, become<\/p>\n
       a multi-State co-operative society.\n<\/p>\n
       (b)         The Central Registrar shall forward to
\n       the co-operative   society a certificate signed by<\/p>\n
       him to the  effect that such    society has been
\n       registered as a multi-State co-operative society
\n       under this Act and also forward a copy of the
\n       same to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
\n       of the State concerned.\n<\/p>\n
       (c) The   Registrar of    Co-operative    Societies
\n       referred to in clause (b)   shall thereupon make<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
                     an order directing that the society had, as from
\n                     the date of registration by the Central Registrar,
\n                     ceased to be a society  under  the   law relating
\n                     to co-operative societies in force in that State.”\n<\/p>\n
    7.            It is settled law that the right of appeal vests in the par-\n<\/p>\n
    ties at the date of the suit and is governed by the law prevailing at<\/p>\n
    that time and the date of the decree or of the filing of the appeal<\/p>\n
    does not affect this right unless some subsequent enactment takes<\/p>\n
    away this right expressly or by necessary intendment.\n<\/p>\n
                          The       reliance   on behalf of the petitioners     on the<\/p>\n
    judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of  Garikapati Veer-\n<\/p>\n
    aya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry,   1957 SCR 488  is well founded. Af-\n<\/p>\n
    ter   referring   to   a   long   line   of   judgements   of   various   courts   the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court summarized its conclusions as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                   “23. From the decisions cited above the following
\n                   principles clearly emerge:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (i) That the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal
\n                   and second appeal are really but steps in a series
\n                   of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity
\n                   and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (ii) The right of  appeal  is   not a mere matter of
\n                   procedure but is a substantive right.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (iii) The institution   of   the suit carries with it the
\n                   implication that all rights of appeal then in force
\n                   are preserved to the parties   thereto till the rest of
\n                   the career of the suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
                  (iv) The right of appeal is a vested right and such
\n                  a right to enter   the   superior   court accrues to
\n                  the litigant and exists as on and from the date the<\/p>\n
                  lis     commences  and     although      it  may   be
\n                  actually exercised when the adverse judgment is<\/p>\n
                  pronounced such right is to be governed by the
\n                  law prevailing at the date of the institution of the
\n                  suit       or     proceeding and not by     the law that
\n                  prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of<\/p>\n
                  the filing of the appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (v) This vested right of appeal can be taken away
\n                  only by a subsequent enactment,   if     it so pro-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  vides   expressly         or   by   necessary   intendment
\n                  and not   otherwise.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 I   find   it   unnecessary   to   deal   in   any   detail   with   the<\/p>\n
    judgements referred  to  in  the above  judgement  as the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court dealt with each of them in considerable detail including by<\/p>\n
    analyzing   the   facts   therein.     There   are   however   certain<\/p>\n
    observations in the judgement which I will refer to in addition to the<\/p>\n
    conclusions as summarized in paragraph 23 quoted above.\n<\/p>\n
                 The   main,   leading   judgement   referred   to   by   the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court was the judgement of the Privy Council in Colonial<\/p>\n
    Sugar Refining Co Ltd. Versus Irving 1905 AC 369. In paragraph 4<\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court cited with the approval the observations of the<\/p>\n
    Privy   Council   that   there   is   no   difference   between   abolishing   an<\/p>\n
    appeal altogether and transferring the appeal to a new tribunal.  In<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
    either case, it was held, there is an interference with the existing<\/p>\n
    rights contrary to the well-known general principle that statues are<\/p>\n
    not to be held to act retrospectively unless a clear intention to that<\/p>\n
    effect is manifested.\n<\/p>\n
                  In   paragraph   11   the   Supreme   Court   approved   the<\/p>\n
    judgement of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case<\/p>\n
    of Daivanayaga Reddiyar vs Renukambai Ammal ILR 50 Woodruff<\/p>\n
    857   =   AIR   1927   Madras   977  wherein  it   was   held   that   this   rule<\/p>\n
    would   also   apply   to   a   mere   fiscal   enactment.     The   Full   Bench<\/p>\n
    rejected as untenable  the argument that when  the right is  taken<\/p>\n
    away by a subsequent alteration in a mere fiscal enactment, the<\/p>\n
    case is not the same as when the right depends on substantive<\/p>\n
    law.\n<\/p>\n
                  In   paragraph   12   the   Supreme   Court   approved   the<\/p>\n
    judgement  of  a  Full  Bench   of  the  Allahabad  High   Court  in   Ram<\/p>\n
    Singha versus Shanker Dayal AIR 1928 Allahabad 437. The Full<\/p>\n
    Bench answered the reference by holding that the right to appeal to<\/p>\n
    the Court of the District Judge was governed by the law prevailing<\/p>\n
    at the date of the institution of the suit,  and  not by the  law  that<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
    prevailed at the date of its decision, or at the date of the filing of the<\/p>\n
    appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                  In paragraph at 17 of the judgement the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    affirmed the decision of a Special Bench of the Madras High Court<\/p>\n
    In re,Vasudeva Samiar AIR 1929 Madras 381 where it was held<\/p>\n
    that the institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all<\/p>\n
    appeals  then   in   force   are   preserved  to   it   through  the   rest   of   its<\/p>\n
    career,   unless   the   legislation   has   either   abolished   the   court   to<\/p>\n
    which   an   appeal   then   lay   or   has   expressly   or   by   necessary<\/p>\n
    intendment given the Act a retrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n
    8.            I   would     extend   to   revisions   the   above   principles<\/p>\n
    applicable   to   appeals.   I   am   conscious  of   the   fact   that   there   are<\/p>\n
    essential   and   important   differences   between   an   appeal   and   a<\/p>\n
    revision.   That however is in the nature of the proceedings.   The<\/p>\n
    scope   for   interference   in   an   appeal   is   wider   than   the   scope   for<\/p>\n
    interference in a revision application.\n<\/p>\n
                  I   would   however   consider   the   similarities   to   be   of<\/p>\n
    greater   significance,   importance   and   relevance   than   the<\/p>\n
    dissimilarities between an appeal and a revision while considering<\/p>\n
    the   question   that   falls   for   consideration   in   this   case.  What   is<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
    important to note is that both, an appeal and a revision, entitle   a<\/p>\n
    party to challenge the judgement of a subordinate authority or court<\/p>\n
    before   a   superior   authority   or   court.   A   revision   and   an   appeal<\/p>\n
    provide the means to an aggrieved party to obtain rectification of<\/p>\n
    orders of subordinate authorities or courts. A party may be entitled<\/p>\n
    to   invoke   the   appellate   jurisdiction   as   a   matter   of   right.     The<\/p>\n
    exercise of revisionary jurisdiction however is often only a matter of<\/p>\n
    discretion of the revisionary authority.   That however to my mind<\/p>\n
    would   make   no   difference   either.     Where   a   statue   provides   a<\/p>\n
    revision it entitles the party to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
    the authority or court.  That the court or authority may or may not<\/p>\n
    exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in the exercise of its discretion is<\/p>\n
    another matter altogether.   What is important is that the party is<\/p>\n
    entitled to approach the revisionary authority and seek the exercise<\/p>\n
    of its discretion in its favour to redress what it considers to be a<\/p>\n
    wrong  order  passed  by  the  subordinate  authority  or  court.    This<\/p>\n
    essential and crucial feature common to an appeal and a revision<\/p>\n
    persuade   me   to   apply   the   principles   applicable   to   appeals   to<\/p>\n
    revisions as well.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
    9.            Often   a   revision   is   permissible   where   no   appeal   lies<\/p>\n
    against an order.   The legislature in such cases confers upon the<\/p>\n
    aggrieved party a right to challenge the order in revision albeit, to a<\/p>\n
    limited extent and in a limited manner. If the provision for revision is<\/p>\n
    by an amendment deleted it would certainly affect a party who had<\/p>\n
    prior thereto a right to challenge the order in revision.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           The next question then is whether either the MCS Act<\/p>\n
    or   the   Multi   –   State   Act   either   expressly   or   by   necessary<\/p>\n
    indendment make   section 154 of the MCS Act   inapplicable qua<\/p>\n
    proceedings   instituted   by   societies   which   were   subsequently<\/p>\n
    converted into Multi – State Co-operative Societies. I think not. The<\/p>\n
    proceedings   were   admittedly   filed   before   a   court   of   competent<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction.  There is nothing in either of the Acts which expressly<\/p>\n
    bars   the   jurisdiction   of   the   court   upon   the   conversion   of   the<\/p>\n
    petitioner   as   a   Multi   –   State   Co-operative   Society.     Nor   is   there<\/p>\n
    anything which leads to that conclusion by necessary intendment.\n<\/p>\n
    The provisions of the said  Act in fact indicate that the courts and<\/p>\n
    authorities   under   the   MCS   Act   continued   to   have   jurisdiction   to<\/p>\n
    decide   matters   which   were   validly   filed   before   them   prior   to   the<\/p>\n
    conversion of the societies registered under the  Multi – State Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                              15<\/span><\/p>\n
    Further neither of the Acts has abolished the courts or authorities<\/p>\n
    under the MCS Act.\n<\/p>\n
    11.           The Multi – State Act and the MCS Act do not contain<\/p>\n
    any provisions for the transfer of pending proceedings under the<\/p>\n
    MCS Act to the authorities constituted under the Multi – State Act.\n<\/p>\n
    When   the   legislature   intends   transferring   pending   proceedings<\/p>\n
    pursuant to the enactment of a new law it provides for the same<\/p>\n
    expressly.     This   has   for   instance   been   done   in   the   case   of   the<\/p>\n
    Family Courts Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and<\/p>\n
    Financial Institutes Act,1993<\/p>\n
                  Section 8 of the Family Courts Act 1984 reads as<\/p>\n
    under:-\n<\/p>\n
                  8.   Exclusion   of   jurisdiction   and   pending
\n                  proceedings.–  Where a Family Court has been
\n                  established for any area, —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (a)  no   district   court   or   any   subordinate   civil
\n                  court   referred   to   in   sub-section   (1)   of   Section   7
\n                  shall,   in   relation   to   such   area,   have   or   exercise
\n                  any   jurisdiction   in   respect   of   any   suit   or<\/p>\n
                  proceeding   of   the   nature   referred   to   in   the
\n                  Explanation to that sub-section;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (b)  no magistrate shall, in relation to such area,
\n                  have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under
\n                  Chapter   IX   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,
\n                  1973 (2 of 1974);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
                (c)       every   suit   or   proceeding   of   the   nature
\n                referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of
\n                Section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX
\n                of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (2   of<\/p>\n
                1974),–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (i)  which   is   pending   immediately   before   the
\n                establishment   of   such   Family   Court   before   any
\n                district   court   or   subordinate   court   referred   to   in
\n                that sub-section or, as the case  may be, before<\/p>\n
                any magistrate under the said Code; and <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (ii)  which   would   have   been   required   to   be
\n                instituted or taken before or by such Family Court<\/p>\n
                if,   before   the   date   on   which   such   suit   or
\n                proceeding  was  instituted  or taken,  this  Act  had<\/p>\n
                come into force and such Family Court had been
\n                established, <\/p>\n
                shall   stand   transferred   to   such   Family   Court   on
\n                the date on which it is established.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Section 31 of  the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and<\/p>\n
    Financial Institutes Act, 1993 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                “31. Transfer of pending cases.– (1) Every suit
\n                or   other   proceeding   pending   before   any   court<\/p>\n
                immediately before the date of establishment of a
\n                Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding
\n                the cause of action whereon it is based is such
\n                that it would have been, if it had arisen after such<\/p>\n
                establishment,   within   the   jurisdiction   of   such
\n                Tribunal,   shall  stand  transferred  on  that  date to
\n                such Tribunal :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Provided   that   nothing   in   this   sub-section   shall
\n                apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before
\n                any court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                          17<\/span><\/p>\n
                 (2)   Where   any   suit   or   other   proceeding   stands
\n                 transferred from   any   court to a Tribunal under
\n                 sub-section (1),–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (a) the   court   shall,   as   soon   as   may   be   after
\n                 such transfer, forward the records of such suit or<\/p>\n
                 other proceeding to the Tribunal; and <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (b) the   Tribunal   may,   on   receipt   of   such
\n                 records, proceed to deal with such suit or other<\/p>\n
                 proceeding,   so   far   as   may   be,   in   the   same
\n                 manner   as   in   the   case   of   an   application   made
\n                 under   Section   19   from   the   stage   which   was
\n                 reached before such transfer or from any earlier<\/p>\n
                 stage as the Tribunal may deem fit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12. <\/p>\n
                 There is no provision in the MCS Act or  the Multi-State<\/p>\n
    Act similar to section 8 of the Family Courts Act and section 31 of<\/p>\n
    the  Recovery  of  Deaths  Due  to  Banks  and  Financial  Institutions<\/p>\n
    Act.   This is a strong indication that the legislature did not intend<\/p>\n
    affecting   pending   proceedings   upon   the   conversion   of   a   society<\/p>\n
    into a multi – State co-operative society.\n<\/p>\n
    13.          There is yet another aspect which militates against a<\/p>\n
    view to the contrary.  In this case  it is the society that has filed an<\/p>\n
    application for review.   The application however may have been<\/p>\n
    filed against a society. If   the respondents contentions are to be<\/p>\n
    accepted even in such cases the application for review would be<\/p>\n
    without jurisdiction upon the society being  converted     into a multi<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
    –   State   co-operative   society.   Thus   the   right   of   a   party  would   be<\/p>\n
    affected not by any act on its part or the effect of any law upon it<\/p>\n
    but by an act of the opposite party with which it had nothing to do.\n<\/p>\n
    I see nothing in the scheme of either of these Acts which warrants<\/p>\n
    an interpretation leading to such a conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
    14.           In   Tirupati   Ginning   &   Pressing   Factory   Vs.   Balaji<\/p>\n
    Ginning   &   Pressing   Industry   &   ors.   (2008)   8   LJSOFT   113   the<\/p>\n
    recovery certificate was applied for by the second defendant Bank<\/p>\n
    under section 101 of the MCS Act on 27.6.2002 and the same was<\/p>\n
    issued   on   9.8.2002.   The   Bank   got   itself   registered   under   Multi-\n<\/p>\n
    State Act after said Act came into force on 19.8.2002.   It was not<\/p>\n
    disputed that the proceedings for recovery under section 101 of the<\/p>\n
    MCS Act were initiated and were pending. Respondent no. 1 filed a<\/p>\n
    civil suit for a declaratory   relief that the defendants including the<\/p>\n
    bank were not entitled to act in furtherance to the provisions of the<\/p>\n
    MCS   Act   and   for   certain   other   consequential   reliefs.     It   was<\/p>\n
    contended  that  in view  of the  registration  of  the  bank  under the<\/p>\n
    Multi-State Act the proceedings under the MCS  Act were a nullity.\n<\/p>\n
    The   rights   of   an   auction   purchaser   were   also   involved.       A<\/p>\n
    preliminary  objection  as  to  the  maintainability  of  that suit  on  the<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                            19<\/span><\/p>\n
    ground   that   no   notice   under   section   164   of   the   MCS   Act   was<\/p>\n
    raised.     While   upholding   this   contention   the   learned   judge   also<\/p>\n
    observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                  “11. Thus, in any case, the recovery was being
\n                  made   as   per   the           provisions       of   the
\n                  Maharashtra   Co-operative   Societies   Act
\n                  according to law as then applicable.” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 The   observations   certainly   support   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
    although   the   submission   presently  under   consideration   does   not<\/p>\n
    appear to have been discussed in any detail.\n<\/p>\n
    15.          In the present case however the matter does not rest<\/p>\n
    there. The judgements of the Supreme Court and the judgements<\/p>\n
    referred to therein refer to cases involving an amendment of the<\/p>\n
    statutes.   In the present case the power of revision under section<\/p>\n
    154 of the MCS Act has not been amended.  Its applicability has<\/p>\n
    been put in question by virtue of a change in the character\/field of<\/p>\n
    operation of the society which in turn has triggered into operation<\/p>\n
    the provisions of an existing law viz. The Multi – State Act.  But if<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction is to be decided as on the date on which the original<\/p>\n
    proceeding   was   instituted   this   would   make   no   difference   for,   as<\/p>\n
    held by the Supreme Court: “The right of appeal is a vested right<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                             20<\/span><\/p>\n
    and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigant<\/p>\n
    and exists as on and from the date the lis commences..”\n<\/p>\n
    16.           This is therefore a different   type of case. There is no<\/p>\n
    amendment of the provision viz. section 154 as such but there is<\/p>\n
    an   impact   of   its   applicability   on   the   change   in   status   of   the<\/p>\n
    petitioner. To the question under consideration I do not think that<\/p>\n
    ought to make any difference. The change in  character may not be<\/p>\n
    involuntary.   There   was   no   compulsion     upon   the   petitioner   to<\/p>\n
    convert itself into a multi – state co-operative society. The effect of<\/p>\n
    law  however  as   to   the  cancellation  of  its  registration     under the<\/p>\n
    MCS Act was involuntary in view of section 22(5)   of the Multi –\n<\/p>\n
    State Act. Surely the legislature  did not  intend  extinguishing  or<\/p>\n
    even  jeopardising  or affecting   the rights and liabilities of a party<\/p>\n
    merely  due  to   the   conversion  of a society into a multi – state<\/p>\n
    co-operative   society.   If   the   respondents’  submission   is   to   be<\/p>\n
    accepted   that   would     be   the   inevitable   consequence.     Such   a<\/p>\n
    society  would be  left without a remedy or absolved of liability as<\/p>\n
    the case may be.  As stated above the Multi – State  Act contains<\/p>\n
    no   provision   for   transfer   of   proceedings   pending   before   the<\/p>\n
    authorities  under the MCS Act to those under the Multi – State Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                             21<\/span><\/p>\n
    17.           The impugned order was based on a judgement of a<\/p>\n
    Division   Bench   of   this   court   in   the   case   of   Adarsh   Ginning   and<\/p>\n
    Pressing Factory Versus State of Maharashtra 2007 (5) ALL MR<\/p>\n
    364. The judgement is of no relevance in the facts of the present<\/p>\n
    case.  Firstly in that case the bank was earlier registered under the<\/p>\n
    MCS Act and on 9.12.1999 it was registered under the Multistate<\/p>\n
    Co-Operative Societies Act, 1984. The bank instituted the recovery<\/p>\n
    proceedings under section 101 on 14.8.2002 (paragraph 20 of the<\/p>\n
    judgement). The  Multi State Act of 2002 came into force with effect<\/p>\n
    from 19.8.2002. Under section 126  of the Act of   2002  the 1984<\/p>\n
    Act was repealed. Section 126 (2) provides a saving clause inter-\n<\/p>\n
    alia in respect of any application made under the 1984 Act. The<\/p>\n
    main issue in the Writ Petitions filed before the Division Bench was<\/p>\n
    as to the validity of the circulars issued by the authorities under the<\/p>\n
    MCS   Act.   It   was   contended   that   the   State   authorities\/authorities<\/p>\n
    under   the   MCS   Act   had   no   jurisdiction   to   issue   directions   or<\/p>\n
    circulars in respect of proceedings relating to the Multi – State Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The   question   presently   under   consideration   neither   fell   for<\/p>\n
    consideration   of   the   Division   Bench   nor   was   dealt   with   by   the<\/p>\n
    Division   Bench   even   obiter.   The   society   before   the   Division<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                             22<\/span><\/p>\n
    Bench was registered as a    multi-State co-operative society under<\/p>\n
    the 1984 Act on 9.12.1999 i.e. before it instituted the proceeding<\/p>\n
    under section 101 of the MCS Act on 28.10.2002.\n<\/p>\n
    18.           Section   99   of   the   Multi   –   State   Act   provides     for<\/p>\n
    appeals.     It   specifies   the   appealable   orders.     An   order   passed<\/p>\n
    under the MCS Act   including the impugned order is not specified<\/p>\n
    in section 99.   Section 101 of the Multi – State Act provides for a<\/p>\n
    review.  It however provides for a review by the appellate authority<\/p>\n
    referred to under section 99.  It clearly therefore does not apply to<\/p>\n
    orders passed under the MCS Act.\n<\/p>\n
    19.   Faced   with   this   it   was   contended   that   the   petitioner   has   a<\/p>\n
    remedy under section 84 of the Multi – State Act which reads as<\/p>\n
    under:-\n<\/p>\n
                84. Reference of disputes.– (1) Notwithstanding
\n                anything contained in any other law for the time<\/p>\n
                being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute
\n                regarding   disciplinary   action   taken   by   a   multi-
\n                State   co-operative   society   against   its   paid
\n                employee   or   an   industrial   dispute   as   defined   in<\/p>\n
                clause (k) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes
\n                Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution,
\n                management   or   business   of   a   multi-State   co-
\n                operative society arises–<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (a) among   members,   past   members   and
\n                persons   claiming   through   members,   past
\n                members and deceased members, or<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                 23<\/span><\/p>\n
     (b) between   a   member,   past   members   and
\n     persons   claiming   through   a   member,   past
\n     member   or       deceased       member     and       the<\/p>\n
     multi-State co-operative society, its board or any
\n     officer, agent or employee of the multi-State co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative society or liquidator, past or present, or <\/p>\n
     (c)    between the multi-State co-operative society
\n     or its board and any past board, any officer, agent<\/p>\n
     or   employee,   or   any   past   officer,   past   agent   or
\n     past   employee,   heirs   or   legal   representatives   of
\n     any   deceased   officer,   deceased   agent   or
\n     deceased   employee   of   the   multi-State   co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative society, or <\/p>\n
     (d) between the multi-State co-operative society
\n     and   any   other   multi-State   co-operative   society,<\/p>\n
     between   a   multi-State   co-operative   society   and
\n     liquidator   of   another   multi-State   co-operative
\n     society or     between     the     liquidator   of     one
\n     multi-State co-operative society and the liquidator<\/p>\n
     of another multi-State co-operative society,  such
\n     dispute shall be referred to arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)   For   the   purposes   of   sub-section   (1),   the
\n     following shall be deemed to be disputes touching
\n     the   constitution,   management   or   business   of   a<\/p>\n
     multi-State co-operative society, namely :–\n<\/p>\n
     (a) a   claim   by   the   multi-State   co-operative
\n     society for any debt or demand due to it from a<\/p>\n
     member   or   the   nominee,   heirs   or   legal
\n     representatives of a deceased member, whether
\n     such debt or demand be admitted or not ;\n<\/p>\n
     (b) a   claim   by   a   surety   against   the   principal
\n     debtor where the multi-State co-operative society
\n     has   recovered   from   the   surety   any   amount   in
\n     respect of any debt or demand due to it from the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                             24<\/span><\/p>\n
                principal  debtor as  a result of  the default of the
\n                principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is
\n                admitted or not ;\n<\/p>\n
                (c)   any   dispute   arising   in   connection   with   the
\n                election of any officer of a multi-State co-operative<\/p>\n
                society.\n<\/p>\n
                (3)   If   any   question   arises   whether   a   dispute
\n                referred to arbitration under this section is or is not<\/p>\n
                a dispute touching the constitution, management
\n                or       business       of       a multi-State co-operative
\n                society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall
\n                be final and shall not be called in question in any<\/p>\n
                court.\n<\/p>\n
                (4)   Where   a   dispute   has   been   referred   to
\n                arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall<\/p>\n
                be   settled   or   decided   by   the   arbitrator   to   be
\n                appointed by the Central Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
                (5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the<\/p>\n
                provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
\n                1996   (26   of   1996)   shall   apply   to   all   arbitration<\/p>\n
                under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration
\n                were referred for settlement or decision under the
\n                provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
\n                1996.\n<\/p>\n
                 It was  submitted that the petitioner ought therefore   to<\/p>\n
    follow   the   procedure   under   the   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,<\/p>\n
    1996. The submission is not well founded.\n<\/p>\n
    20.          Section 84 of the Multi – State Act would apply to cases<\/p>\n
    which are to be instituted under the said Act.  It does not apply to<\/p>\n
    cases which have already been instituted another Act including the<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                      25<\/span><\/p>\n
    MCS Act. The section does not even provide for a transfer of cases<\/p>\n
    filed under the MCS Act to the authorities\/arbitration provided for<\/p>\n
    therein. If the legislature intended annuling all proceedings under<\/p>\n
    the MCS Act and the re-presentation\/filing thereof under section 84<\/p>\n
    of the Multi  – State Act  the same would have been provided for<\/p>\n
    expressly.   As it is there is not even a suggestion to this effect in<\/p>\n
    either enactment.  To accept the respondents submission would be<\/p>\n
    reading into the enactments consequences of a wide and crucial<\/p>\n
    nature which cannot be done.\n<\/p>\n
    21.         There is another indication which militates against the<\/p>\n
    respondents submission.  There is no provision in the Multi – State<\/p>\n
    Act which saves   the  bar of limitation if proceedings were to be<\/p>\n
    adopted de-novo under section 84 thereof. To this it was submitted<\/p>\n
    that an application could be made for condonation of delay under<\/p>\n
    section 85(3)   which provides for limitation.   Section 85 reads as<\/p>\n
    under :-\n<\/p>\n
                “85.   Limitation.– (1)   Notwithstanding   anything
\n                contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963),
\n                but subject to the specific provisions made in this
\n                Act, the period of limitation in the case of a dis-
\n                pute referred to arbitration shall,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (a) when the dispute relates to the recovery of
\n                any sum including interest thereon due to a multi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                             26<\/span><\/p>\n
                State co-operative  society by a member  thereof,
\n                be computed from the date on which such mem-
\n                ber dies or ceases to be a member of the society;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (b) save   as   otherwise   provided   in   clause   (c),
\n                when the dispute relates to any act or omission<\/p>\n
                on   the   part   of   any   of   the   parties   referred   to   in
\n                clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-sec-
\n                tion (1) of Section 84, be six years from the date
\n                on which  the act or omission,  with  reference to<\/p>\n
                which the dispute arose, took place;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (c)   when the dispute is in respect of an election
\n                of an officer of a multi-State co-operative society,<\/p>\n
                be one month from the date of the declaration of
\n                the result of the election.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                 \n                (2)          The period of limitation in the case of\n                                \n                any     dispute,     except     those     mentioned       in\n<\/pre>\n
                sub-section (1), which are required to be referred
\n                to arbitration shall be regulated by the provisions
\n                of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), as if the<\/p>\n
                dispute were a suit and the arbitrator a civil court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (3)               Notwithstanding anything contained in
\n                sub-sections (1) and (2), the arbitrator may  admit
\n                a dispute after the expiry of the period of limita-
\n                tion,   if   the   applicant   satisfies   the   arbitrator   that<\/p>\n
                he had sufficient cause for not referring the dis-
\n                pute within such period.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    22.         Section 85 does not entitle a party to condonation of<\/p>\n
    delay as a matter of right.  It is left to the discretion of the court to<\/p>\n
    condone   or not to condone delay.  It was submitted that in such<\/p>\n
    circumstances    the   court is bound to  condone delay.  It is not<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                           27<\/span><\/p>\n
    permissible for one court to speculate on  what another court may<\/p>\n
    or may not do.  To say that the court ought to exercise discretion in<\/p>\n
    a particular manner is not the same thing as to say that the court<\/p>\n
    would do so.  If the party is entitled to be   relieved    of the bar   of<\/p>\n
    limitation on account of any legislative amendment the legislature<\/p>\n
    itself would would provide for the same.  I do not see anything in<\/p>\n
    section 85 which supports the respondents contention.  There is no<\/p>\n
    period   specified     within   which   the   application   under   section   84<\/p>\n
    ought to be made     upon     the registration of a society under the<\/p>\n
    Multi – State Act.   This too indicates  that the legislature never in-\n<\/p>\n
    tended such a society making an application under section 84.\n<\/p>\n
    23.          On behalf of the petitioner it   was   submitted that the<\/p>\n
    cancellation  of the petitioners registration under the MCS Act was<\/p>\n
    ordered under section 17 (4) of the MCS Act.  The submission was<\/p>\n
    that though the directions may have been issued under section 22<\/p>\n
    (5) of the Multi – State Act     the    final  order actually   cancelling<\/p>\n
    the petitioners registration under the MCS Act was passed under<\/p>\n
    section 17 (4) of the MCS Act. In that event, it was submitted, un-\n<\/p>\n
    der section 17 (3) the proceedings adopted by the petitioner under<\/p>\n
    the MCS Act are  entitled  to  be  continued.  Considering the view<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                            28<\/span><\/p>\n
    that I have taken earlier it is not necessary to consider this submis-\n<\/p>\n
    sion.\n<\/p>\n
    24.          It   was   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner   that   the<\/p>\n
    revision   application   before   respondent   no.3   is   also   saved   by<\/p>\n
    section 126 and in particular sub-section (6) thereof. Section 126<\/p>\n
    reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                “126. Repeal and saving.–( 1)   The Multi-State
\n                Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (51 of 1984) is<\/p>\n
                hereby repealed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (2) Without prejudice to the provisions  contained
\n                in the General Clauses Act,   1897 (10 of   1897)<\/p>\n
                with respect to  repeals,  any    notification, rule,
\n                order,   requirement,         registration,       certificate,
\n                notice,          decision,     direction,     approval,
\n                authorisation,   consent,   application,   request   or<\/p>\n
                thing made, issued, given or done under the Mul-
\n                ti-State   Co-operative   Societies  Act,   1984  (51   of<\/p>\n
                1984)  shall,  if  in force at the commencement of
\n                this Act, continue to be in force and have effect
\n                as if made, issued,     given       or done under the<\/p>\n
                corresponding provisions of this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (3) Every       multi-State     co-operative       society,
\n                existing   immediately   before   the   commencement
\n                of this Act which has been registered under the<\/p>\n
                Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912) or
\n                under any other Act       relating     to co-operative
\n                societies in force, in any State or in pursuance of
\n                the provisions of the     Multi-Unit       Co-operative
\n                Societies Act, 1942 (6 of 1942) or the Multi-State
\n                Co-operative   Societies   Act,   1984   (51   of   1984),
\n                shall    be      deemed   to be registered under the
\n                corresponding provisions of this Act, and the bye-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                 29<\/span><\/p>\n
     laws of such society shall, insofar as they     are
\n     not inconsistent with the provisions   of    this  Act,
\n     or the rules, continue to be in force until   altered
\n     or rescinded.\n<\/p>\n
     (4)  All appointments, rule and orders made, all<\/p>\n
     notifications and notices issued and  all suits and
\n     other proceedings instituted under any of the Acts
\n     referred to in sub-section (1) shall, insofar as they
\n     are   not   inconsistent   with   the   provisions   of   this<\/p>\n
     Act, be deemed to have been respectively made,
\n     issued and instituted under this Act, save that an
\n     order made cancelling   the registration of a  mul-
\n     ti-State  co-operative society   shall   be deemed,<\/p>\n
     unless the society has already been finally liqui-
\n     dated, to be an order made under Section 86 for<\/p>\n
     it being wound up.\n<\/p>\n
     (5) The provisions of this Act shall apply to–\n<\/p>\n
     (a) any   application   for   registration   of   a   multi-
\n     State co-operative society;\n<\/p>\n
     (b)     any         application   for   registration   of\n     amendment   of     bye-laws   of    a multi-State\n     co-operative society,\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     pending at the commencement of this Act and to
\n     the proceedings   consequent    thereon  and    to
\n     any registration granted in pursuance thereof.\n<\/p>\n
     (6) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any le-
\n     gal proceeding  pending  in   any court or before
\n     the   Central   Registrar   or   any   other     authority   at
\n     the commencement of this Act shall be continued
\n     to be in that court or before the Central Registrar
\n     or   that   authority   as   if   this   Act   had   not   been
\n     passed.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                               30<\/span><\/p>\n
                   The submission was that the words ” …………..  pending<\/p>\n
    in   any   court   or   before   the   Central   Registrar   or     any   other<\/p>\n
    authority   …………….”  in   sub-section  (6)   ought   to   be   construed   to<\/p>\n
    include proceedings which were pending at the time of conversion<\/p>\n
    of a society    registered   under    the     MCS   Act into a multi –\n<\/p>\n
    State co-operative society and the cancellation of the registration of<\/p>\n
    such   a   society   under   the   MCS   Act   and   the   registration   thereof<\/p>\n
    under the Multi – State Act.\n<\/p>\n
    25.<\/p>\n
                   If my answer to the question that falls for consideration<\/p>\n
    is correct this submission   is not well founded. It would follow in<\/p>\n
    that   event   that   the   proceedings   under   the   MCS   Act   remaining<\/p>\n
    unaffected   could not  fall   within the   ambit of section 126. The<\/p>\n
    submission   also   involves     rewriting   by   adding   words   to   the<\/p>\n
    provision of section 126(6) which is not permissible.\n<\/p>\n
    26.            In   the   circumstances   the   impugned   order   dated<\/p>\n
    14.8.2008 is  set-aside, the  revision application  is restored  to file<\/p>\n
    and respondent no.3 shall decide the same on merits. There shall<\/p>\n
    however  be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:48 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank … vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009 Bench: S.J. Vazifdar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2008 The Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. ….Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….R espondents Mr.Vishal Ghosalkar for the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank ... vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank ... vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-16T19:41:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank … vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T19:41:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6207,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009\",\"name\":\"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank ... vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T19:41:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank … vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank ... vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank ... vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-16T19:41:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank … vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T19:41:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009"},"wordCount":6207,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009","name":"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank ... vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T19:41:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-abhyudaya-co-operative-bank-vs-mr-milind-more-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank … vs Mr.Milind More on 4 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}