9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not deposited 50% amount of the total amount of recoverable dues as required under Section 154(2-A) of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act . Admittedly, the recovery certificate was issued on 30.8.2003 and the petitioner filed the revision on 22.2.2005. This application for revision was made after the period of limitation of two months had expired. The petitioner, therefore, applied for condonation of delay. 3. Without considering the application for condonation of delay, the Divisional Joint Registrar has rejected the petitioner's revision on the ground that he has not deposited 50% amount of the total amount of recoverable dues as required by Section 154(2-A) of the Act. There is no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strar, and to the Registrar if passed by any other officer. (2A) No application for revision shall be entertained against the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under Section 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, fifty percent, amount of the total amount of recoverable dues. (3) No application for revision shall be entertained, if made after two months of the date of communication of the decision or order. The revisional authority may entertain any such application made after such period, if the applicant satisfies it that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. (4) The State Government may, by order, direct that the powers conferred on it by this section shall, in such ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making the application within the prescribed period. The entertainment of the revision is another matter, the occasion for which arises if and after delay is condoned. There is thus a clear demarcation between the proceedings taken for establishing that there was sufficient cause for not approaching the Registrar within the prescribed period and the entertainment of the revision itself. 7. The word entertain has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in (Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assit. Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Kanpur Range) [1968] 1 SCR 505 in the context of an appeal wherein Their Lordships held that the word entertain means to deal with or admit to consideration and not receiving or filing of the appeal. This deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
