Anna S/O Sadashiv Jirapure And ... vs Nagar Parishad Employees ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5449 Bom

wp.6827.16.jud                           1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO.6827 OF 2016


01]    Anna s/o Sadashiv Jirapure,
       Aged about 63 years, Occupation : Pensioner,
       R/o Dahiwalkar Layout, Near Datey College,
       Yavatmal, T.D. Yavatmal.

02]    Niraj s/o Bhanudas Dafale,
       Aged about 49 years, Occupation : Service,
       R/o Abhinav Colony,
       Behind Sandip Mangalam, Yavatmal,
       T.D. Yavatmal.                                             .... Petitioners

       -- Versus -

01]    Nagar Parishad Employees
       Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,
       Yavatmal, Through its President.

02]    Yavatmal District Central
       Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
       Through its Manager
       (Regional Branch/Head Office),
       Near City Police Station, Yavatmal,
       T.D. Yavatmal.                                         .... Respondents


Ms. Ashwini Athalye, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri Kuldeep Mahalle, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. P.S. Chaudhari, Adv. h/f Shri Abhay Sambre, Adv. for Respondent No.2.


                CORAM           : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.

                DATE            : AUGUST 2, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

02] The challenge in petition is to the common judgment

and order, dated 10/06/2016 passed by the Maharashtra State

Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur in

Appeal Nos.6/2015 and 55/2015 allowing the dispute filed by

respondent no.1.

03] Respondent no.2 in the petition challenged the orders

of the Appellate Court and the Co-operative Court in Writ Petition

No.3896/2016. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated

12/07/2016, which reads thus :

"2. The award passed by the Co-operative Court upholding the claim of the respondent No.1-Society for recovery of Rs.70,375-19 and the judgment passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court maintaining the award passed by the Co-operative Court, are challenged.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued to show that the impugned award and appellate judgment are unsustainable. However, after

going through the impugned award and the judgment passed by the appellate Court, I find that the subordinate Courts have dealt with all the relevant aspects, have considered the documentary evidence on record and also the evidence of the parties. I do not find any patent illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the subordinate Courts.

4. The petition is dismissed. No costs."

04] The present petition is by opponent nos.2 & 3 in

Dispute No.873/1988. Hence, for the same reasons, present

petition also needs to be dismissed.

05] Writ Petition No.6827/2016 stands dismissed. No

costs.

*sdw                                           (Kum. Indira Jain, J)