Sangli Urban Co-Operative Bank ... vs M/S. Trimurti Distributors, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6304 Bom

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.)