Sangli Urban Co-Operative Bank ... vs M/S. Trimurti Distributors, ...

Sherla V.



                                                                           wp.10887.2015_94.doc


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                        
                                    WRIT PETITION NO.10887 OF 2015

            Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank                               ... Petitioner




                                                                
                  Vs.

            M/s.Trimurti Distributors & Ors.                    ... Respondents




                                                               
            Mr.G.H. Keluskar for the Petitioner
            None for Respondents




                                                       
                                                CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

                                           ig    DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2016

            ORAL JUDGMENT:
                                         

1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith at the stage of admission itself.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner bank shows service on all the respondents and has filed an affidavit of service in January, 2016 alongwith acknowledgement receipts of service on the respondents.

Perused the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by my predecessor where it is mentioned that the notices sent to the respondents indicate that the matter would be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

Thereafter, private service was effected upon the respondents. However, none is present.

wp.10887.2015_94.doc

3. The petitioner - bank has challenged the order passed by the Cooperative Court before the appellate Court as the dispute was partly allowed. The bank is a disputant before the trial Court and also before the appellate Court. The dispute pertains to recovery of a loan. By this petition, the petitioner bank prays that the order dated 19.7.2014 passed by the Pune Bench of the Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, in Appeal No.162 of 2005 be quashed and set aside and at exhibits 30 and 31 be restored to file. Exhibit 30 was an application for legal representatives of Respondent No.2 Chandrankant Bandopant Joshi;

Respondent No.4 - Vithal Narayan Paranjape and Respondent No.5 Smt.Sushila Vithal Paranjape and exhibit 31 was an application for condonation of delay of 2 years and 3 months. However, both the applications were dismissed by the appellate Court.

4. Perused the order dated 14.7.2004 passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative appellate Court. It appears that there was an inordinate delay of 3 years and no steps were taken by the bank. However, it was a money recovery proceeding against the loan given by the bank to the respondent borrower. Admittedly, there is a decree in the hands of the appellant and, therefore, in all fairness, it is to be heard and decided on merits.

wp.10887.2015_94.doc

5. In the circumstances, the order dated 19.7.2014 is hereby set aside.

The cooperative appellate Court to give notices and seek the presence of all the respondents and after hearing the respondents, the appeal be decided on merits. The impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the cooperative appellate Court on or before 20.11.2016, so as to enable the appellate Court to pay the same to the Respondents equally.

6. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:54:39 :::