901 WP 461 OF 1997.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 901 WRIT PETITION NO. 461 OF 1997 Sangli Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. A Coop Bank, registered under the Maharashtra Coop. Societies Act, 1960 and having its registered office at Khanbhag, Sangali. … Petitioner. VERSUS 1. Dr. Madhav Vasudeo Gogate, Adult, Occ. Service, Residing at Sangli. 2. Shri. Narayan Ramchandra Borgikar Adult, Occ. Service, residing at Sangli. … Respondents ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. G. H. Keluskar (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Ajay Parsekar Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Akshay Kulkarni a/w Adv. Avesh Ghadge, a/w Adv. Aditya Ghadge i/by Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 27.08.2026 PER COURT : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Cooperative Court in Appeal No. K-17/1996. 3. A short question raised in the petition is the maintainability of the dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Respondent no. 1 had approached Cooperative Court by filing Co.Op.Case 1/4 901 WP 461 OF 1997.odt No. 888/1993 in respect of cause of action pertaining to the promotion to the vacant post of Chief Executive Officer. He was non suited by the Cooperative Court on the ground of jurisdiction as the claim was found to be not maintainable under Section 91 of the Act. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred. By the impugned judgment, the dispute was found to be maintainable under Section 91 of the Act, quashing the order passed by the Cooperative Court. 4. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 2, who was promoted to the post of Chief Executive Officer stood superannuated and the petition has become infructuous. It is further fairly disclosed by the learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni for respondent no. 1 that his client was terminated from the services and claim against the termination was non suited by all the forums. 5. Respondent no. 1 had filed Co.Op.Case No. 888/1994 for following reliefs: “12- Relief clause : 12.1 It may be declared that, a) The right of the plaintiff to equal opportunity of promotion is violated by the Defendant No. 1 Bank in illegal, mala fide manner. b) The defendant no. 1 has victimised the plaintiff by not giving him the opportunity for the appointment to the post of Chief Executive Officer. c) The nature of the appointment of defendant no. 2 as Chief Executive Officer is null and void, ultra vires bye- laws of the Bank, indirect violation of the eligibility criteria described by the Cooperative Deptt. 2/4 901 WP 461 OF 1997.odt d) The plaintiff has a right to the appointment to the post of Chief Executive Officer. e) That the appointment of defendant no. 2 under the resolution dated 19.12.94 is null and void. 12.2 (a) The defendant Bank may be injuncted perpetually by injunction that no appointment to the said executive post be made without following legal procedures for the appointment (the procedure includes advertisement and abidance of equal opportunity). 12.2 (b) The defendant no. 1 and 2 be perpetually injuncted from entrusting, carrying out the duties of Chief Executive Officer by defendant no. 2 and the defendant 2 may further be injuncted from taking the benefits of the post of Chief Executive Officer and further the defendant 2 be injuncted from exercising the powers of Chief Executive Officer perpetually. 12.3 The plaintiff be awarded the Court costs from the defendant. 12.4 Leave may kindly be granted to add, alter or amend the plaint if found necessary. 12.5 Any other just and equitable reliefs that the Hon’ble Court deems fit be granted in favour of the plaintiff.” 6. I am of the considered view that the relief claimed pertains to the service conditions. Respondent no. 1 claimed to be eligible to the post of Chief Executive Officer, which was denied by passing resolution dated 19.12.1994 and appointing respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for 3/4 901 WP 461 OF 1997.odt respondent no. 1 tried to articulate that the reliefs are not strictly in respect of breach of service conditions and no reinstatement is claimed. I find no merit in the submissions. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Maharashtra State Co-Operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange; 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 365. In view of paragraph nos. 10 to 14, I find substance in the submission that Appellate Court committed error of jurisdiction in holding that Cooperative Court had jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Act. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of coordinate bench in the matter of Madhukar Mahadev Patil Vs. Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2025(1) Mh.L.J. 284, which inter alia relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court. This judgment also helps the petitioner. 8. Per contra, reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench in the matter of Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd. and others Vs. V.S. Loni and another; 1984 Mah. L.J. 297. In that case, besides challenging termination dated 04.02.1981, relief of damages was also claimed. In that context, the Division Bench observed in paragraph no. 27 (iv) that the claim for damages arising out of breach of contract can be part of dispute entertainable under Section 91 of the Act. The facts of the cited judgment are distinguishable from the case at hand. I prefer to rely upon the latest and consistent view being taken by the High Court and the Supreme Court, referred above. 9. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 4/4