Mandatory 50% deposit under Section 154(2A) applies to revisions challenging actions consequential to recovery certificates.

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

Upon default, the Bank obtained a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960 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 notice of attachment (the derivative/consequential action) and not the recovery certificate itself.

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

A reference was made to this Division Bench due to a conflict between *Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dhillon P. Shah* (mandating deposit) and *Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade v. Jawali Sahakari Bank Ltd.* (exempting deposit for derivative challenges).

Whether a litigant, who challenges an action consequential to the issuance of a certificate under Section 101 of the MCS Act in a revision under Section 154, and not the recovery certificate itself, is required to deposit an amount equivalent to 50% of the dues recoverable under the recovery certificate?

The court primarily applied Section 154(2A) of the MCS Act, 1960, which mandates a 50% deposit for revision applications against recovery certificates.

It relied on the "Purposive Construction" doctrine and *Heydon’s Rule* to suppress the mischief of dilatory litigation and advance the remedy of speedy recovery.

The court cited *Bengal Secretariat Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank v. Aloke Kumar* and *Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Co-op. Milk Mktg. Federation Ltd.* regarding the constitutional mandate under the 97th Amendment to ensure co-operative societies function in an economically sound manner.

It further referenced the principles of *Casus Omissus* as discussed in *Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar* and *Bhaskar v. Ayodhya Jewelers*.

The Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons for Section 154(2A) explicitly aimed to curb the practice of defaulters delaying recovery through revision applications.

It reasoned that a literal interpretation—exempting those who challenge only "consequential" steps (like attachment or sale) while leaving the underlying debt (the certificate) untouched—would render the provision nugatory and allow litigants to bypass the deposit requirement through "subtle inventions and evasions".

Applying purposive interpretation, the Court held that the term "against the recovery certificate" in Section 154(2A) must encompass all derivative actions founded on said certificate.

The Court rejected the view in *Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade* for failing to provide reasons or consider the legislative intent, instead affirming the logic in *Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd.* that a person against whom a certificate is issued cannot be in a better position by merely shifting the target of their challenge to the execution stage.

The Court held that "recovery certificate" includes all consequential decisions and orders to fulfill the legislative intent of deterring frivolous delays.

The Registry was directed to place the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge for further consideration based on this answer.