Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Bhudargadh patsanstha

Page no : 2

B.K.GUPTA... (ADVISOR)     19 February 2012

I your first message it was not clear that it was a BANK.I presumed it to be a co-op

society.

In this case you should file a complaint with the Reserve Bank Of India and 

request RBI to first STOP payments by the Bank and to the Bank as the Patsastha might be having some deposits of different types with different Banks.

You should also contact Registrar Co op Societies and request him to appoint Administrator

By appointment of administrator realisation of debts by auction of the properties

created by loans advanced by patsanstha would be possible and that in turn 

could be disbursed among creditors.

Tripti Nagwekar (Owner)     20 February 2012

Dear Sir,

You have just given the suit number say Bombay(Civil) WP/1077/2012 but full details about this case is not mentioned there.  Please give me complete details.  Further how do you get complete details of bhudharggadh co-op. bank?  Are you victim?

B.K.GUPTA... (ADVISOR)     20 February 2012

I typed a detailed message but on submission it disappeared so you provide your email id at bkgupta1212@gmail.com

B.K.GUPTA... (ADVISOR)     20 February 2012

sbw 1   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   WRIT PETITION NO.10464 OF 2011                                 Shri Albert Pistoba Bardaskar and ors. ....  Petitioner.  V/s. Bhudargad Nagari Sahakari Pat  Sanstha Maryadit and ors.    ... Respondents.  Mr. Kishor Patil  for the Petitioner.  Mr. Chetan Patil for the Respondent nos.3 & 4. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar AGP for the Respondent nos.5 to 7.            CORAM :  G.S.GODBOLE  J.           DATED  : 10 th  February, 2012.  P.C. 1.        Heard Mr.Kishor Patil for the petitioners, Ld. AGP for respondent nos. 5 to 7 and Mr. Chetan Patil for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2.                    It is the submission of the advocate for the petitioners that the certificate issued under  section 101 of  the M.C.S. Act, 1960 was issued without notice to the petitioners and that they were never heard.  If that be so, the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the same authority namely the Assistant Registrar of Co­operative Societies, Gargoti  who had issued the  recovery certificate  in  favour  of  respondent  no.1.   Mr. Kishor  Patil therefore prayed for leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate application for recall of the recovery certificate before thesbw 2   same officer who has issued the recovery certificate. 3.          This prayer is opposed by Mr. Chetan Patil appearing for respondent no.3 & 4, firstly, by relying upon  Section 94(3A)  of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 and   secondly   by   relying   upon   the   provisions   of   Rule   86­A   to   86   ­F contained in Chapter VIII ­A of the M.C.S. Rules, 1961.  According to him, since neither  the Act  (Section  101)  nor  Rules  86­A to  86­F  confer  any power of review on the Assistant Registrar, such a course is impermissible and   the   petitioners   cannot   be   given   liberty   to   file   an   application   for recalling the order granting recovery certificate. 4.          In this regard, Mr. Kishor Patil Ld. Advocate for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the observations in paragraph  19 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.M.E. Union V/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and  Weaving  Mills  Ltd. AIR  2005  Supreme  Court  1782  in  which  it  is observed as under: “Applying these principles it  is apparent  that  where a Court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if  the Court  or  the quasi judicial authority is  vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. The procedural review belongs to a different category. In such a review, the Court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate   proceeds   to   do   so,   but   in   doing   so   commits   a procedural illegality which goes  to  the root  of  the matter  and invalidates   the   proceeding   itself,   and   consequently   the   order passed therein.  Cases where a decision is rendered by the Court or quasi judicial authority without notice to the opposite party or under  a  mistaken  impression  that  the  notice  had  been  served upon   the   opposite   party,   or   where   a   matter   is   taken   up   for hearing and decision on a date other than the date fixed for its hearing,   are   some   illustrative   cases   in   which   the   power   of procedural review may be  invoked.   In  such  a  case  the  partysbw 3   seeking review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review.  He has to establish that the procedure followed by the Court or the quasi judicial authority suffered from such illegality that  it  vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order  made therein, in as much the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of his.  In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be re­heard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed.  The order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous, but   because   it   was   passed   in   a   proceeding   which   was   itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding.” 5.         In my opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court is squarely applicable. Whether the petitioners were duly served with the notice of the recovery proceedings before the Assistant Registrar or is not a question of fact which need not be and cannot be gone into in this petition. However, if the petitioners   or any one of them are not served with the proceedings of recovery certificate, then they are certainly entitled to make an   application   to   the   Assistant   Registrar,   Gargoti   who   shall   verify   the original record and find out whether the notice of the proceedings was duly served or not and if it is found that the notice of the proceedings was not duly served, the logical consequences  of  recalling  the earlier  order  will have to follow. 6.           Hence the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty to file   an   application   for   recalling   the   original   order   granting   recovery certificate.     All   contentions   of   parties   about   the   factum   of   service   orsbw 4   otherwise of the original proceedings are kept open.   7.             Mr. Kishor Patil makes a statement that such an application will be made within four weeks from today.   The statement  is accepted.   If  an application is made, since the only issue which is required to be considered in the application is  whether  service of  notice was  effected or  not, the Assistant   Registrar   will   finally   decide   such   application   on   or   before 15/4/12.  Till 30/4/12 the parties will maintain status quo in respect of the property in question in all respects.   Writ petition is disposed off  in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.                            ( G.S.Godbole, J.)     

B.K.GUPTA... (ADVISOR)     20 February 2012


 
 
  Party Names Bench Case Number  
 


 
  1.  SHRI PRAKASH SHRIPAD DHOLE V/S 1. THE BHUDARGAD NAGRI SAKAHARI PATSANSTH LTD. AND ORS. Bombay(Civil) CAW/1813/2011  
 


 
  2.  RAJARAM PANDURANG GAVANKAR V/S 1. THE BHUDARGAD NAGRI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD. AND ORS. Bombay(Civil) CAW/1812/2011  
 


 
  3.  SHRI PRAKASH SHRIPAD DHOLE V/S 1. THE BHUDARGAD NAGRI SAKAHARI PATSANSTH LTD. AND ORS. Bombay(Civil) WP/4837/2011  
 


 
  4.  RAJARAM PANDURANG GAVANKAR V/S 1. THE BHUDARGAD NAGRI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD. AND ORS. Bombay(Civil) WP/4835/2011  
 


 
  5.  MR. KRISHNA VITHOBA MORE V/S 5] BHUDARGAD NAGARI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, BRANCH UTTUR Bombay(Civil) CAS/238/2012  
 


 
  6.  SHRI. ALBERT KISTOBA BARDESKAR AND ORS V/S BHUDARGAD NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT, GARGOTI, THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR AND ORS Bombay(Civil) WP/10464/2011  
 


 
  7.  TATYASO PANDURANG KHOPADE V/S 1.THE SPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER, THE BHUDARGAD NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA, LTD.AND ORS. Bombay(Civil) WP/6113/2011  
 


 
  8.  MR. KRISHNA VITHOBA MORE V/S 5] BHUDARGAD NAGARI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, BRANCH UTTUR Bombay(Civil) CAS/237/2012  
 


 
  9.  MR. KRISHNA VITHOBA MORE V/S 5] BHUDARGAD NAGARI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, BRANCH UTTUR Bombay(Civil) SA/20817/2011(stamp)  
 


 

Tripti Nagwekar (Owner)     21 February 2012

Please give me contact numbers of some petitioners to discuss the output.

B.K.GUPTA... (ADVISOR)     21 February 2012

I don't have contact numbers of petitioners.

Tripti Nagwekar (Owner)     21 February 2012

Then how would I come to know the victims like me have recovered their fixed deposit amount from Bhudhargad sahakari patsanstha which gone liquidation in the year 2002.  It is not fruitfull by just giving the reference numbers of cases in high court and all these case are either dismissed or withdrawn by petitioners themselves.  Further you are staying at rajasthan and yourself is not victim, then how come you would help me in Bhudargad matter.  If really aware about these fraud, please give me details.

B.K.GUPTA... (ADVISOR)     21 February 2012

I learnt the name Bhudargad from your message.As you were interested in joining the petitioners who have filed cases at Bombay High Court I provided you the details.At no point I advised you to go to the Bombay High Court.

I advised you to contact RBI and Registrar Cooperative Societies but as now you are coming up with the fact that 

the society has gone in liquidation then it is now too late.Anyway you get in touch with Registrar Coop and for further guidance you call me at my mobile.

Tripti Nagwekar (Owner)     22 February 2012

I don't know exactly what happened to bh. sah. pat. but there would be many depositors like me who kept their money before year 2002 and I want to know what those depositors did exactly like they got their deposit back or not.  Now regional registrar says that cr. soc. is sunk because that registrar never wants to work.

Nilesh   14 January 2017

hello there !

can you tell me how shall i file case gaisnt colsed pathshanta , in which i had my deposits.

is there any time period to file case as my deposis are for 1998 year.

Deepak Bhor   15 December 2023

Mr. B. K. Gupta,

Please contact me on my email id deepak.bhor@hotmail.com to further discuss with you.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register