Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75754 (BOM)

BIPIN M. KHANDHAR v. RAIGAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ALIBAUG AND ORS.

WP/9466/2014 · 2025-11-07

Shri M M Sathaye

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

10 WP-9466-2014.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9466 OF 2014 Bipin M. Khandhar .. Petitioner Versus Raigad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents *** None for the Petitioner. Mr. C. G. Gavnekar a/w. Mr. Rohit Parab for Respondent No. 1. Mrs. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 7 & 8. **** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 7th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. : 1. This petition is pending since February 2014. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kokan Division, New Mumbai in Revision Application No.39 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner. By the impugned order, the Divisional Joint Registrar has declined to entertain the revision on the ground that a statutory requirement under Section 154(2)(A) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 requiring the revision-applicant to deposit 50% of recoverable dues, is not complied with. 3. On 24.02.2015 notices were issued. It is important to note that in the presence of the Advocate for the Petitioner notices for final disposal were issued on 24.02.20215 itself. Therefore, the Petitioner is aware that the matter shall be considered finally. On 21.02.2020 nobody appeared for Petitioner. On 17.10.2025 nobody appeared for Husen HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Date: 2025.11.07 19:46:21 +0530 10 WP-9466-2014.doc the Petitioner and the petition was adjourned for today for disposal, as an opportunity to the Petitioner. Despite that, today nobody appears for the Petitioner. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances when nobody is prosecuting the petition, this is nothing but a burden increasing pendency. Even otherwise, the impugned order simply insists on compliance with the statutory requirement and therefore, there is nothing perverse or illegal in the impugned order. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Husen