SIDDIQ ABU MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU REGISTRAR AND ORS
WP/12784/2026 · 2026-09-28
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13293 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13293 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1/2 5 IA.7591.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12784 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7591 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 12784 OF 2026 Siddiq Abu Mohammad .. Petitioner/ Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra, Thru Registrar & Ors. .. Respondents … Ms Ratna Jaiswal, for the Applicant. Mr. Ketan Joshi, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the Respondent-State. ...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C:-
1. The Petitioner before us is a borrower who raised a challenge to an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, on 01.08.2025, in exercise of power under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, declaring that an amount of Rs. 4,89,214/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only) is due and payable to Indra Co-operative Credit Society Limited, i.e. Respondent No. 4, by the Petitioner, who is shown Rushikesh RUSHIKESH VISHNU PATIL Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH VISHNU PATIL Date: 2026.10.01 11:55:25 +0530
2/2 5 IA.7591.2026.odt as the borrower, alongwith the two guarantors. Though the Petitioner has set out a case that he has been cheated by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with the help of Respondent No. 3, and certain facts are placed before us, we noted that on 23.06.2026, the Petitioner approached the learned Single Judge and sought withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file an appeal/revision against the Recovery Certificate. Even the Writ Petition contains a statement to the effect that a revision application has been filed before the Joint Divisional Deputy Registrar, Mumbai, and the same is pending.
2. We, therefore, refuse to entertain the Writ Petition on both counts, namely, first, that an alternative remedy is already invoked and the revision application is pending before the Divisional Authority and, secondly, on the count that the Writ Petition involves various disputed questions of fact which we are not entitled to look into in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. In the wake of dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Interim Application also stands disposed of.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Rushikesh