Synopsis

A cooperative bank admitted about 1105 persons as members through a resolution. Some existing members filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act challenging that resolution, seeking cancellation of membership of those 1105 persons. The disputants applied to implead all 1105 members as party opponents. The cooperative court issued notices by registered post. While some notices were served, many returned with endorsements like “refused”, “unclaimed”, or “not claimed”. The disputants then filed an application for substituted service by newspaper publication, citing that serving over 1100 persons was tedious. The cooperative court allowed the application on the same day with a one‑line order without recording any satisfaction. The bank (opponent no.1) challenged this order before the cooperative appellate court, which dismissed the revision. The bank then approached the High Court. The Bombay High Court quashed both orders, holding that substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC can only be resorted to as a last resort, and the court must record its satisfaction that the party is avoiding service or cannot be served in ordinary manner. A cryptic order passed on mere asking, without taking all reasonable steps for regular service, is unsustainable.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 5th May, 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 6368 of 2025 (unreported)

Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rule 20 (substituted service); Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 91 (dispute resolution), Rule 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules (service of notices)

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay aurangabad bench

Writ petition no. 6368 of 2025

The amravati district central co-op. bank ltd., amravati, through its chief executive officer (petitioner) vs. Aniruddha alias bablubhau subhanrao deshmukh and others (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice prafulla s. khubalkar

Reserved on: 11th february, 2026; pronounced on: 5th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Code of civil procedure, 1908 – order v rule 20 (substituted service), order v rule 17 (affixure of summons when defendant cannot be found)

Maharashtra cooperative societies act, 1960 – section 91 (disputes relating to business of society), section 101 (revision by state government), section 102 (powers of appellate court)

Maharashtra cooperative societies rules, 1961 – rule 78 (service of notices, summons, etc. – modes including registered post, through society, or as court thinks fit)

Subject matter of the judgment:

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.