Revision challenging actions consequential to Section 101 recovery certificates requires mandatory 50% deposit of dues.

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

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

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

The Revisional Authority rejected the application because the Petitioner failed to deposit 50% of the recoverable dues as required by Section 154(2A).

A reference was made to the Division 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 derivative actions from deposit).

The court primarily 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 the legislative intent behind the amendment.

Precedents including Bengal Secretariat Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank v. Aloke Kumar were cited regarding the 97th Constitutional Amendment and the duty to revitalize the cooperative sector.

The court also applied the principles of Casus Omissus to ensure the statute remains workable and effective.

The Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting Section 154(2A) was to curb dilatory tactics by defaulters who stall recovery through frivolous revisions.

A literal interpretation—limiting the deposit requirement only to direct challenges of the certificate—would allow litigants to bypass the law by merely challenging "derivative" or "consequential" actions (like attachment notices), thereby defeating the statute's object.

The Court held that even if the language seems focused on the certificate, "recovery certificate" must be interpreted to encompass all consequential decisions and orders arising from it.

The Court reasoned that a Judge must "iron out the creases" to prevent the frustration of the legislation, especially in light of the constitutional mandate under Part IX-B to ensure the economic soundness of cooperative societies.

The Court expressly approved the view in Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. and overruled the contrary logic in Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade.

The Registry was directed to place the petitions before the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits.