9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42011 passed by the Learned District Deputy Registrar Coop Societies, Mumbai (1), by which orders, the Applications for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Applications came to be rejected. 3 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that the Petitioners herein purported to file the Revision Applications against the certificates issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The said certificates has been issued at the behest of the Respondent No.3 society which claimed an amount of Rs.1,88, 289/which are the outstanding dues owed by the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1056 of 2011 and an amount of Rs.4,78,580/which are the outstanding dues owed by the Petitioners i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Petitioners in the Applications were sought to be questioned. The Learned District Deputy Registrar considered the said Applications and on such consideration has rejected the same by the impugned orders dated 1542011. The Learned District Deputy Registrar was of the view that the Petitioners were obliged to give justification for every day's delay and that being not done by the Petitioners, they were not entitled to the condonation of delay. As indicated above, it is the said order which is impugned in both the Petitions. 5 Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. 6 The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would reiterate the case of the Petitioners before the District Deputy Registrar and would contend that the reasons given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Revision Application for condonation of delay before the authority therefore commend acceptance. It is also well settled by catena of decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court that a party should be allowed to prosecute its remedy on merits rather than being thrown out on technicalities. The revisional authority has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that every day's delay has to be explained by the Petitioners. In my view therefore, the impugned orders dated 1542011 in both the above Petitions are required to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the delay of 58 days in filing the Revision Applications stands condoned. The Revision Applications to accordingly be numbered by the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
