Bombay High CourtWP/2036/2023disposed off

The Moti Urban Co Operative Bank Ltd. Through Accountant Ramesh Bhoju Patil v. Prakash Govinda Nikwade And Others

2023-02-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker3 pages

1 2036.23WP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 11 WRIT PETITION NO.2036 OF 2023 THE MOTI URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

THROUGH ACCOUNTANT RAMESH BHOJU PATIL

VERSUS

PRAKASH GOVINDA NIKWADE AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi ...

CORAM:ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE:

20th FEBRUARY, 2023 PER COURT:

1] Heard.

2] The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Branch at Aurangabad in Appeal No.42/2022 and the judgment and order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court at Jalgaon in Dispute No.3/2018 to the extent of dismissing the dispute against the respondent nos.4 and 5.

2 2036.23WP 3] As per the dispute application, the respondent nos.1 to 3 are the members of the petitioner - society. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the employer of the other respondents. The respondent no.1 has availed loan of Rs.50,000/- on 22.09.1999 to which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are Guarantors. 4] The petitioner submits that the respondent no. 4 has undertaken to deduct loan installment from the salary of the respondent no.1. The respondent no. 5 is also employer of the respondent no.1. The respondents have executed loan documents and accepted joint and several liability to repay loan. The agreed rate of interest was 20% p.a. with quarterly rest. The respondents failed to repay loan amount in spite of repeated notices. Therefore, the dispute came to be filed.

5] The learned trial Court held that Exhibit-30, which is an undertaking given under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, is not proved. The learned trial Court also held that if the undertaking is not proved, the respondent nos.4 and 5 are not liable for the payment of loan amount taken by the respondent no.1. The same is upheld by the

3 2036.23WP Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai. The petitioner is not able to establish the said documents before this Court and show how the finding rendered by the Courts below is perverse, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai.

6] Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] DDC