The Bombay High Court has clarified that revisional authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 cannot evade their duty to adjudicate on merits when the entire record, including detailed objections, is already before them. A mere remand without examination defeats the purpose of revisional scrutiny and causes avoidable delay in recovery proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present writ petitions challenge an order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, acting as Revisional Authority under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The original proceedings were initiated by Shree Mahesh Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Nashik, for recovery of dues from borrowers and guarantors. The first authority had passed an order in favor of the Bank. The borrowers and guarantors filed objections, which were submitted to the Revisional Authority along with the record.
Key Facts
- The Bank filed recovery proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
- Borrowers and guarantors filed written objections to the recovery application
- The first authority passed an order in favor of the Bank on 15.11.2024
- Revision Application Nos. 229 of 2025 and 230 of 2025 were filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 20.12.2024
- The Revisional Authority passed the impugned order on 06.01.2026
- The impugned order did not examine the objections on merits but remanded the matter to the first authority for reconsideration
- The Revisional Authority cited alleged deficiencies in cross-examination and examination-in-chief as grounds for remand
Procedural History
- 15.11.2024: First authority passed recovery order in favor of the Bank
- 20.12.2024: Revision Application Nos. 229/2025 and 230/2025 filed before Divisional Joint Registrar
- 06.01.2026: Revisional Authority passed impugned order remanding matter to first authority
- 12.02.2026: Writ Petition No. 3188 of 2026 filed before Bombay High Court
- 13.02.2026: Writ Petition No. 3189 of 2026 filed as connected petition
- 16.03.2026: Hearing concluded before Justice Amit Borkar
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner (Bank): The Revisional Authority had the complete record and was legally bound to examine the objections. Remand was an abuse of revisional power and caused undue delay in recovery.
For the Respondents (Borrowers and Guarantors): The first authority failed to provide adequate opportunity for cross-examination. The Revisional Authority was justified in remanding to ensure procedural fairness.
Relief Sought
The Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 and direct adjudication of the revision application on merits by the Revisional Authority.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Revisional Authority under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 may remand a matter to the first authority for reconsideration when the entire record, including detailed objections, is already before it, or whether it is legally obligated to examine those objections and decide the revision on its own merits.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The Bank contended that revisional jurisdiction under Section 101 is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive mechanism to correct legal errors. The objections raised by the borrowers and guarantors were fully documented and part of the record. The Revisional Authority had no legal ground to avoid adjudication. Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Kumar (2018) to argue that revisional powers must be exercised to ensure justice, not to defer it. The Bank emphasized that delay in recovery undermines the very purpose of the summary procedure under the Act.
For the Respondent/State
The State and borrowers argued that the first authority had not properly recorded evidence or permitted cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The Revisional Authority was therefore justified in remanding to ensure a fair hearing. They relied on Rajendra Singh v. Maharashtra Co-operative Society (2020) to assert that procedural fairness must prevail even in summary proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of proceedings under Section 101 and the scope of revisional jurisdiction. It held that such proceedings are summary in nature, designed for expeditious recovery of dues, and governed by statutory rules, particularly Rule 86, which does not contemplate cross-examination as in regular civil trials.
"The legislative intent behind this procedure is clear. The recovery procedure provided under Section 101 is designed to operate with reasonable expedition so that the rights of the co-operative society are protected."
The Court observed that the Revisional Authority had the complete record before it, including all written objections. There was no legal impediment to examining those objections. The mere assertion of procedural irregularity without specific findings or evidence of prejudice could not justify remand.
The Court distinguished Rajendra Singh by noting that in that case, the record was incomplete or the hearing was fundamentally flawed. Here, the objections were on record and the issue was one of legal evaluation, not evidentiary deficiency. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is not a tool for procedural delay but a mechanism for legal correction.
"Merely sending the matter back to the first authority without undertaking such examination defeats the purpose of revisional scrutiny. Such remand also unnecessarily prolongs the dispute between the parties and causes avoidable delay in the adjudication of the bank's recovery proceedings."
The Court further held that the Revisional Authority’s reliance on cross-examination was legally unsustainable, as Rule 86 does not confer such rights. The authority’s duty was to assess whether the first authority’s order was legally sustainable on the material before it.
The Verdict
The writ petitions succeeded. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2026. The Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to decide Revision Application Nos. 229 of 2025 and 230 of 2025 on its own merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. The parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 30 March 2026 at 11.00 a.m. The Revisional Authority shall decide the revision application within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Revisional Authorities Cannot Defer Merits-Based Decisions
- Practitioners must now argue that remand without merit-based adjudication is an abuse of revisional power under Section 101
- Where objections are fully documented, the Revisional Authority must examine them and pass a reasoned order
- Delay tactics through remand will not be countenanced in summary recovery proceedings
Cross-Examination Is Not Permissible in Section 101 Proceedings
- Objections based on lack of cross-examination are legally unsustainable under Rule 86
- Courts will not equate summary proceedings with regular civil trials
- Evidence must be evaluated on affidavits and written submissions, not oral examination
Procedural Fairness Must Be Assessed Within Statutory Framework
- Natural justice does not require formal trial procedures in statutory summary proceedings
- Fairness is determined by opportunity to submit written objections and receive reasoned orders
- Revisional authorities must act as legal reviewers, not trial courts
