WRIT PETITION NO v. Chopda Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Chopda
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3232
Judgment
Cause title
4. Shri Vijay s/o. Dattatrya Patil, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Shiv Colony, Chopda, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon.
5. Shri Dilip s/o. Waman Patil, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Wardi, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents
.......................
Mr. Milind M. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S
ORDER :
Heard Adv. Mr. M.M. Joshi, for the petitioners. (3)
The petitioners are guarantors and their relative, respondent no.3, is the borrower. Challenge is to Revenue Recovery Certificate (For short, "RRC") issued in the year 2008 with contention, that both petitioners are wrongly shown as co- borrowers and, in fact, they are only guarantors. By inviting attention to other documents, effort is to demonstrate that notices of RRC have been sent on wrong address when petitioners have never resided at that place. Reliance is being placed upon judgments of this court reported at (i) 2011(2) Mh.L.J. 194, in the case of Vithal s/o. Laxman Fatangade & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, and (ii) 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 333, in the case of Khushal s/o. Narayanrao Mundhe Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, to urge that when notices are not served, RRC itself is bad and must be quashed and set aside.
During hearing, it has been pointed out that respondent no.3, Suresh (alleged sole borrower), has filed dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and after dismissal thereof, has preferred an appeal before Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court.
The RRC, as issued, mentions the addresses of both the petitioners. According to Adv. Mr. M.M. Joshi, those addresses are not supplied by the petitioner and are written by the creditor Bank i.e. respondent no.1 subsequently. In other (4) words, effort is to contend that both the petitioners have signed on blank papers.
In writ jurisdiction, I am not inclined to accept this contention on behalf of petitioners. Petitioners have got remedy of filing revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Prima facie it appears that notices are sent on addresses which are mentioned in RRC. All questions are, therefore, disputed questions and can be raised by the petitioners before revisional authority.
Other contention is, respondent no.3 / borrower had paid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- out of loan received by him to son of Chairman of respondent no.1 and thereafter that amount has been refunded to Suresh. There is some dispute about this amount. Again, issue can be looked into by the revisional authority. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in this jurisdiction.
Operative part
In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3232
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 91; Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act — s. 154.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 27 Apr 2011. The bench was B P DHARMADHIKARI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.