Bombay High Court · 2025-12-19
SUDHAKAR HANUMANT PAWAR vs THE HONOURABLE DIVISIONAL JT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS
- Citation / case number
- WP/11112/2025
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- SUDHAKAR HANUMANT PAWAR
- Respondent
- THE HONOURABLE DIVISIONAL JT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS
Judgment text excerpt
37-wp11112-2025 final J.doc MPBalekar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11112 OF 2025 Sudhakar Hanumant Pawar, Aged 64 years, Indian Inhabitant, owner of flat No. 301, Pratik A, Urja Pratik Co- operative Housing Society Ltd., S. No. 65, Hissa No. 03 & 04, Kharegaon, Kalwa (W), Thane – 400 605. … Petitioner V/s. 1 The Hon’ble Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, 3rd Floor, Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614. 2 District Deputy Registrar, 1st Floor, Gamdevi, Gamdevi Mandai Building, Near Ground, Thane – 400 601. 3 Urja Pratik Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Having its registered office at S. No. 65, Hissa Nos. 03 & 04, Kharegaon, Kalwa (W), Thane – 400 605. … Respondents Mr. Aseem Naphade along with Rajendra J. Rathod and Dhruv B. Jain for the petitioner. M.S. Shrivastava, AGP for the State – Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 15, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 19, 2025 1 37-wp11112-2025 final J.doc JUDGMENT: 1. By the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the judgment and order passed in Revision Application No. 93 of 2024. By the said order, the Revisional Authority has remanded the proceedings to the District Deputy Registrar for a fresh decision under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are not in dispute. On 24 September 2021, Respondent No. 3 instituted Recovery Application No. 703 of 2021 before Respondent No. 2, claiming an amount of Rs. 3,12,045/- from the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply and opposed the claim on the ground of limitation. He specifically contended that the recove