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

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

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

Subsequently, the Recovery Officer issued a notice of attachment of the Petitioner’s property under Rule 107 of the MCS Rules, 1961.

The Petitioner filed a revision application under Section 154 of the Act, challenging only the attachment notice (derivative action) and not the recovery certificate itself.

The Revisional Authority rejected the application on 14th February 2014 for failure to deposit 50% of the recoverable dues as mandated by Section 154(2A).

A reference was made to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions in *Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dhillon P. Shah* (requiring deposit) and *Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade v. Jawali Sahakari Bank Ltd.* (exempting deposit).

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

It relied on the "Heydon’s Rule" (Mischief Rule) of statutory interpretation and the principle of "Purposive Construction" to suppress the mischief of dilatory tactics.

The Court cited *X v. Principal Sec. Health and Family Welfare Dept.* regarding the identification of legislative intent.

The Court cited *Bengal Secretariat Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank v. Aloke Kumar* regarding the constitutional mandate under Part IX-B (97th Amendment) to ensure economically sound functioning of cooperatives.

The Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting Section 154(2A) was specifically to curb the practice of defaulters delaying recovery by filing revision applications.

Although a literal reading of Section 154(2A) mentions revisions against the "recovery certificate," a narrow interpretation excluding derivative actions (like attachment notices under Rule 107) would render the provision otiose and allow litigants to bypass the deposit requirement by ostensibly challenging only execution steps.

The Court invoked the doctrine of *casus omissus*, noting that it is the duty of the judge to "iron out the creases" to give life to the legislative intent.

The Court concluded that the term "recovery certificate" must encompass all consequential decisions and orders arising therefrom to prevent the frustration of the law and safeguard the financial health of cooperative societies.

The view expressed in *Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd.* was upheld, and the contrary view in *Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade* was disapproved.

The matters were directed to be placed before the learned Single Judge for further consideration.