Summary: The Bombay High Court has ordered a new investigation into a loan recovery case involving the Sangola Urban Co-operative Bank. The case involves accusations of fake loan documents and improper procedures. The court found that the earlier decision didn't properly consider the arguments made by the defense.
The case involves Sonia Bhalchandra Godase and others against the State of Maharashtra and the Sangola Urban Co-operative Bank. The bank had issued a recovery notice for a loan they claimed was owed by Sonia Bhalchandra Godase and her co-petitioners. However, Sonia and her co-petitioners argued that the loan documents were fake and the loan was never given.
Sonia and her co-petitioners accused the bank and one of its employees, Dharmaraj Borade, of creating fake loan documents. They claimed the loan was shown to be given to multiple people, which went against the bank's rules that allowed loans to only one member at a time. They also pointed out mistakes in the loan amounts and payment schedules.
"The bank has created fake loan documents and is trying to recover a loan that was never given."
The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies had previously issued the recovery notice without properly considering the arguments made by Sonia and her co-petitioners. The court noted that the Registrar did not think through the defenses and did not provide a detailed decision.
"The order shows a complete lack of thinking. Such an order cannot be considered a judgment."
Mr. Prasad Dani, representing Sonia and her co-petitioners, argued that the steps outlined in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act were not followed. He emphasized that the request for the recovery notice did not follow the required rules and that the Registrar did not provide a detailed decision addressing the defenses.
Mr. V.S. Talkute, representing the bank, argued that Sonia and her co-petitioners had another option through a revision application. He maintained that the Registrar had considered all necessary documents and defenses before issuing the notice.
The court, led by Judge S.G. Chapalgaonkar, found that the Deputy Registrar’s order lacked the necessary reasoning and consideration of the defenses. The court canceled the previous order and directed a new investigation to be conducted within four weeks.
"The challenged order cannot be upheld. The matter needs to be sent back to the Deputy Registrar."
The parties are required to appear before the Deputy Registrar on November 17, 2025, for the new investigation. The Registrar is instructed to conduct a thorough investigation and issue a detailed decision based on the findings.
