The Bombay High Court has ruled that registrars of co-operative societies cannot shirk their statutory responsibility by dismissing disputes as “too complicated.” The court emphasised that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, provides a speedy remedy for recovery of dues and must be applied effectively.
The order came in a plea filed by Saraf Kaskar Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd, which had sought recovery of maintenance arrears dating back to 1982 from defaulting members. The society approached the deputy registrar after its attempts to collect the dues failed. However, the registrar rejected the application, stating that the case involved “complicated questions of law” and would require adjudication before the co-operative court.
According to the registrar, complexities arose because some members had made partial payments not reflected in the society’s accounts, the records were unclear, and the society had delayed action for decades without explanation.
e the registrar’s orders, holding that the statutory mechanism under the Act was specifically designed to provide societies with a quick and effective route for recovering arrears. The provision empowers the registrar to treat such dues as arrears of land revenue and issue recovery certificates based on verified documents.
The court clarified that these proceedings are meant to be summary in nature, relying primarily on accounts, receipts, resolutions, and other official records. They do not require full-scale trials, cross-examinations, or elaborate evidence.
“The registrar is expected to apply his mind to the documents produced and weigh any material submitted by members disputing the society’s calculations. He must not allow frivolous objections to stall recovery but cannot ignore genuine disputes supported by records,” the bench observed.
The judge further remarked: “The registrar cannot shirk his statutory responsibility by resorting to vague observations about complexity. Unless issues clearly fall outside the scope of summary enquiry, the registrar is bound to determine whether arrears are due.”
The court held that the deputy registrar was wrong in rejecting the society’s applications and quashed his orders. It directed both parties to appear before the deputy registrar, K-West Ward, on September 29. The registrar has been asked to decide the matter within three months after granting a fair hearing and recording findings based on the documents placed on record.
