Arun Laxmanrao Battinwar v. The Maharashtra Gramin Bank Thro Chairman And Another

10-WP-5847-16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5847 OF 2016 WITH CA/14418/2016 IN WP/5847/2016 ARUN LAXMANRAO BATTINWAR

VERSUS

THE MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Sujeet D. Joshi Advocate for Respondents : Shri T. K. Prabhakaran ...

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020 PER COURT :

1.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

2.

After hearing both the sides, it transpires that recovery under impugned orders is for the period post 31-03-2014. It further transpires that the amount sought to be recovered has been frozen in Bank account of petitioner.

3.

Going by the reasons which went into passing of impugned orders, it does not appear that there is any illegitimacy or illegality in issuing those, looking at the antecedents in the matter. In exercise of extraordinary powers, we do not intend to interfere with impugned order. Writ petition is, therefore, not entertained and is rejected.

10-WP-5847-16.odt 4.

The amount has already been frozen and learned counsel for Bank, on instructions, states that the Bank would not recover amount more than what is due under the impugned communications.

5.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) SVH