Deposit of 50% dues is mandatory for revisions challenging actions consequential to a Section 101 recovery certificate.

The Petitioner stood as a guarantor for a loan granted by Respondent No. 1.

Upon default, a recovery certificate was issued against the borrower and the Petitioner under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960 on 24th September 2013.

The Petitioner did not challenge the certificate itself but filed a revision under Section 154 of the Act against a subsequent notice of attachment of property issued under Rule 107 of the MCS Rules, 1961.

The Revisional Authority rejected the revision for failure to deposit 50% of the recoverable dues as required by Section 154(2A).

A reference was made to a Larger Bench due to a conflict between *Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dhillon P. Shah* (requiring deposit for derivative actions) and *Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade v. Jawali Sahakari Bank Ltd.* (exempting deposit if only Rule 107 is challenged).

The Court applied Section 154(2A) of the MCS Act, 1960, which mandates a 50% deposit of recoverable dues for entertaining a revision against a recovery certificate.

It relied on the "Purposive Construction" doctrine and *Heydon’s Rule* (Mischief Rule) to interpret statutory intent.

The Court referenced *Bengal Secretariat Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank v. Aloke Kumar* regarding the constitutional spirit of the 97th Amendment to ensure economically sound cooperative functioning.

It further applied the principle that *casus omissus* (statutory gaps) can be supplied by courts when literal interpretation frustrates the legislative object (citing *Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar* and *Bhaskar v. Ayodhya Jewelers*).

The Court noted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons for Section 154(2A) explicitly sought to curb "dilatory tactics" by defaulters using revision applications to stall recovery.

While a literal reading of Section 154(2A) mentions revisions against the "recovery certificate," the Court reasoned that excluding "derivative" or "consequential" actions (like attachment notices) would render the provision nugatory.

Such a narrow interpretation would allow debtors to bypass the deposit requirement by ostensibly challenging only the execution steps while effectively interdicting the recovery of dues.

The Court held that the term "recovery certificate" must encompass all consequential decisions and orders arising from it to suppress the mischief of delayed recoveries.

The Court favored the reasoning in *Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd.* over *Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade*, noting the latter lacked analytical depth regarding legislative intent.

It held that a litigant challenging any action consequential or derivative to a Section 101 recovery certificate in a revision under Section 154 is mandatory required to deposit 50% of the recoverable dues.

The Court affirmed that this requirement applies regardless of whether the challenge is to the certificate itself or to the execution process (e.g., Rule 107), as both aim to obstruct the recovery founded on the certificate.

The Registry was directed to place the petitions before the Single Judge for disposal in light of this answer.