Decided on January 04,2005



K.J.Paratwar, - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel.
(2.) During the course of final arguments, it was pointed out that the question as to whether this Tribunal can hear Original Application in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court Order dated 16.1.2004 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 886 of 2004. Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd, staying the operation of the judgment if the Hon'ble Bench (F.B) of parent High Court in the matter between Narendra Kantilal Shah v. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeal) Bombay and Ors. is of vital importance and finding to the same goes to the root of the matter. The F.B. has endorsed the law laid down by Hon'ble Judges of Division Bench (D.B.) in the matter between Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Star Glass Works and Ors., 2003 (3) Bom. C.R. 374. Considering the significance of the issue, I have thought it expedient to restrict to that question. Mr. Ismail Nasikwala, learned Defence Counsel has at the outset invited my attention to the question formulated by the F.B. for the consideration which is reproduced below: "Do the Courts and authorities constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act) and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (the 2002 Act) continue to have jurisdiction to entertain applications/disputes submitted before them by the Co-operative Banks incorporated under the 1960 Act and the 2002 Act for an order for recovery of debts due to them, after establishment of a Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the 1993 Act)." The F.B. ruled that on and from the date on which the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) was constituted under R.D.D.B. Act (which was on 16.7.1999 in case of this D.R.T.) the Courts and authorities under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 would cease to have jurisdiction to entertain the applications submitted by the Co-operative Banks for recovery of their dues in excess of Rs. 10 lacs. The necessary corollary is this Tribunal will have jurisdiction of trying those matters.
(3.) MR. Ismail Nasikwala has then drawn my attention to the order of the Apex Court dated 16.1.2004, referred to above, which runs below: "Pending further orders, there shall be ad interim stay of the operation of the impugned judgment." Thus, the operation of the F.B. judgment has been stayed by the Apex Court. MR. Ismail Nasikwala has thereupon submitted and in my view rightly that the status as it existed before the judgment of F.B. (in fact before the judgment of D.B.) has stood restored since the D.B. judgment has stood merged in the F.B. judgment. There is fortification to above view by the below noted observations by other D.B. of parent High Court in the order dated 21.6.2004 in 2642 of 2003: "Subsequent to the order of stay granted by the Apex Court the position in law would be that the law before the judgment would be the law in force. In other words the remedy under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act will be available.";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.