SUDHAKAR HANUMANT PAWAR v. THE HONOURABLE DIVISIONAL JT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS
Limitation under Section 92 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act Does Not Apply to Recovery Proceedings Under Section 154B-29 Before the Registrar.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:56235
Decision Date: 19-12-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Sections 91, 92, 93, 98, 101, 154B-29; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, Rules 86(a) to 86(e); Limitation Act, 1963
- Facts: A housing society (Respondent No. 3) initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner, a member, for unpaid dues under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The District Deputy Registrar initially dismissed the recovery application due to deficiencies in the account statement. However, the Divisional Joint Registrar, in a revision application, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, finding the account extract to be in conformity with the relevant rules. The petitioner challenged this remand order, arguing that the recovery claim was barred by limitation under Section 92(2) of the Act, read with the Limitation Act, as if it were a civil suit.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, which remanded the recovery proceedings to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration.
- Issue: Does the period of limitation prescribed under Section 92(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, read with the Limitation Act, 1963, apply to recovery proceedings initiated under Section 154B-29 of the same Act before the Registrar, or is Section 154B-29 a separate code for recovery independent of Section 92?
- Holding: The High Court held that the limitation period under Section 92(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, does not apply to recovery proceedings initiated under Section 154B-29 of the same Act before the Registrar. The writ petition was dismissed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 154B-29 provides a separate, self-contained mechanism for the recovery of dues of housing societies, operating independently of the dispute resolution framework under Sections 91 and 92 of the Act. Section 154B-29 contains a non-obstante clause, explicitly overriding Sections 91, 93, and 98, indicating the legislature's intention to create a distinct route for recovery. Proceedings under Section 154B-29 are recovery proceedings before the Registrar, not disputes before the Co-operative Court. The Court also relied on precedent, including Sea Face Park Co-operative Housing Societies v. State of Maharashtra, to reinforce the principle that Section 92 operates strictly within the field of disputes before the Co-operative Court and does not extend to summary recovery proceedings before the Registrar.
🔒 For Members Only