912-wp-6009-2022.doc Shabnoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6009 OF 2022 Nilam Vinod Nair … Petitioner V/s. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Subhash G. Bane a/w Ms. Avneet Nagpal, for the petitioner. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State – respondent. Mr. Chetan G. Patil (through V. C.) a/w Ms. Gauri Dalvi, for respondent No.3. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 4, 2025 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority. By the impugned order, the Revisional Authority confirmed the decision of the Special Recovery Officer, who had rejected the petitioner’s objection filed under Rule 107(14) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. 2. The petitioner had stood as a guarantor for the loan advanced by the respondent-society. She objected to the proposed auction on the grounds that the property was jointly owned by her, that the upset price fixed was not in line with the prevailing market value, and that she was ready and willing to deposit an amount of 9,00,000, which the society refused to accept. The ₹ 1 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2025.11.04 15:06:34 +0530 912-wp-6009-2022.doc Special Recovery Officer, by his order dated 19 September 2013, rejected these objections. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 479 of 2013, which also came to be dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. The Revisional Authority noted that the petitioner was a guarantor for the said loan and that a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, had already been issued against her. It further recorded that the auction had been held on 21 July 2013 and that possession of the property was handed over to the auction purchaser on the same day. The share certificate was issued in favour of the purchaser on 7 September 2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the proviso (4) to clause (e) of sub-rule (11) of Rule 107 of the MCS Rules. He contended that where the date of auction mentioned in the proclamation is postponed beyond seven days, the Special Recovery Officer is required to issue a fresh proclamation. It was submitted that in the present case, the auction which was initially fixed on 7 July 2013 was actually held on 21 July 2013, that is, after a delay of more than seven days, and therefore, the sale stood vitiated for non-compliance with the said provision. 5. In reply, learned advocate for the respondent-society referred to the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 5 July 2013. It recorded that the borrower had sought postponement of the auction on humanitarian grounds, due to the demise of his mother on 31 May 2013, and had expressed his willingness to deposit the outstanding 2 912-wp-6009-2022.doc dues. Considering the said request, the Deputy Registrar permitted postponement of the auction. 6. Once the postponement of the auction was granted on the request of the borrower himself, such action amounts to his waiver or deemed consent under proviso (4) to clause (f) of sub-rule (11) of Rule 107 of the MCS Rules. The rule clearly provides that when postponement is sought by the borrower and permitted by the competent authority, it is deemed that the borrower has consented to the change in the sale date. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the conduct of the auction on 21 July 2013. The record shows that the postponement was not arbitrary or for extraneous reasons but granted upon a written request made on humanitarian grounds. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Deputy Registrar and the Special Recovery Officer was in accordance with the Rules. 7. The next ground urged by the petitioner relates to the fixation of the upset price at 40,00,000, which she claims was ₹ much below the market value of about 1,00,00,000. However, ₹ this contention lacks any supporting material. Neither before the Special Recovery Officer nor before the Revisional Authority did the petitioner produce any valuation report, sale instance, or any independent evidence to prove the alleged market rate. Mere oral assertion without evidence cannot displace the statutory presumption in favour of the action taken by the Recovery Officer. In the absence of credible proof, the Revisional Authority rightly refrained from interfering with the price fixed. 3 912-wp-6009-2022.doc 8. Regarding the petitioner’s offer to deposit 9,00,000 in ₹ addition to 3,00,000 already deposited, it is necessary to refer to ₹ Rule 107(13) of the MCS Rules. The rule mandates that the defaulter or any person who seeks to set aside the sale must deposit the entire amount due along with interest and recovery costs. The requirement is mandatory and not procedural. The petitioner neither deposited the full dues nor made any effort to comply with the statutory condition. A mere willingness to pay part of the dues does not meet the legal requirement. Therefore, her objection cannot be treated as establishing any “material irregularity” within the meaning of Rule 107(14). The authorities below, therefore, acted correctly in rejecting this contention. 9. The claim of the petitioner that she is a co-owner of the property also cannot be accepted. The record establishes that she stood as a guarantor for the loan advanced to the borrower and that a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the MCS Act has been issued against her. Once such certificate is issued, the Recovery Officer is empowered to attach and sell the property of the defaulter or guarantor. The property, therefore, was validly attached and sold under Rule 107(11). The plea of co-ownership is a private dispute that cannot override the statutory recovery proceedings initiated under the Act. Hence, this objection also deserves rejection. 10. The auction in question was held in the year 2013. The petitioner now expresses willingness to deposit the entire dues after more than a decade. Such belated offer has no legal value. Rule 107(13) requires the deposit to be made within the 4 912-wp-6009-2022.doc prescribed time, not at the convenience of the defaulter. Acceptance of such an offer at this stage would defeat the sanctity of the auction process and disturb rights that have already vested in the auction purchaser long ago. Therefore, the Revisional Authority rightly upheld the order of the Special Recovery Officer. The impugned order is well-reasoned and consistent with the statutory framework. I find no infirmity warranting interference. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 5