Bombay High Court
Smt. Audabai Adhar Patil Deceased ... vs Balkishan Manikchand Zavar ... on 24 January, 2018
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 1 ))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.105 OF 1998 IN
WRIT PETITIONNO.303 OF 1991
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1968 OF 1998
Avadabai Adhar Patil,
Since deceased, through L.Rs.
1-a) Sau. Kalpana w/o Dinkar Patil,
Age 45 years, Occu. Household &
Agriculture, R/o Paldi,
Tq. Dharangaon, District Jalgaon
1-b) Sau. Neeta w/o Deelip Patil,
Age 42 years, Occu. Household &
Agriculture, R/o as above. ... APPELLANTS
(L.Rs. of Orig. Respdt. No.2)
VERSUS
1. Balkisan s/o Manikchand Zavar,
Since deceased, through L.Rs.
1-A) Radheshyam Balkisan Zavar,
Age 56 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Paldhi (Kh.), Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
1-B) Kailaschandra Balkisan Zavar,
Age 53 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Paldhi (Kh.), Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
1-C) Satyanarayan Balkisan Zavar,
Age 51 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Paldhi (Kh.), Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
1-D) Sau. Sadhana Dilip Aagiwal,
Age 36 years, Occu. Household,
R/o At Post Saykheda, Tq. Niphad,
District Nashik
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:10:53 :::
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 2 ))
2. Somnath Manikchand Zaver,
Age major, Occu. Business,
R/o Paldhi, Taluka Erandol,
District Jalgaon.
3. Madanlal Manikchand Zaver,
Age major, Occu. Business,
R/o Nandurbar, Taluka Nandurbar,
District Dhule
4. Jalgaon Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
having its office at Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
5. Mr. R.N. Patil,
Judge, Co-operative Court,
Jalgaon, District Jalgaon
6. The Members of State Co-operative
Appellate Court,
(i) Shri M.H. Jadhav,
(ii) Shri S.P. Ghogre
(Respondent Nos.5 & 6(i) & (ii) deleted
as per leave of Court dated 19.4.2004)
... RESPONDENTS
(No.1 to 3 Orig. Petitioners,
No.4 Orig. Respondent)
.....
Shri V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel with
Shri A.V. Hon, Advocate for appellants
Shri P.D. Bhosale, Advocate holding for
Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1-A to 1-D & 2
Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent No.3
.....
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.106 OF 1998 IN
WRIT PETITIONNO.303 OF 1991
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1967 OF 1998
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:10:53 :::
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 3 ))
The Jalgaon Peoples Co-operative
Bank Ltd., having its office at Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon, through its ... APPELLANT
General Manager (Orig. Respondent No.1)
VERSUS
1. Balkisan s/o Manikchand Zavar,
Since deceased, through L.Rs.
1-A) Radheshyam Balkisan Zavar,
Age 56 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Paldhi (Kh.), Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
1-B) Kailaschandra Balkisan Zavar,
Age 53 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Paldhi (Kh.), Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
1-C) Satyanarayan Balkisan Zavar,
Age 51 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Paldhi (Kh.), Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
1-D) Sau. Sadhana Dilip Aagiwal,
Age 36 years, Occu. Household,
R/o At Post Saykheda, Tq. Niphad,
District Nashik
2. Somnath Manikchand Zavar,
Age major, Occu. Business,
R/o Paldhi, Taluka Erandol,
District Jalgaon.
3. Madanlal Manikchand Zavar,
Age major, Occu. Business,
R/o Nandurbar, Taluka Nandurbar,
District Dhule
4. Audabai Adhar Patil,
Died through her L.Rs.
4-A) Prabhakar Adhar Patil,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o Paldhi, Tq. Dharangaon,
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:10:53 :::
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 4 ))
District Jalgaon.
4-B) Sou. Sankuntala Yadav Mahajan
Age 63 years, Occu. Household,
R/o C/o Y.C. Mahajan,
Kamlakar Nagar, Ambarnath,
District Thane.
4-C) Sou. Vimal Raghunath Bhaurao
Age 61 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Sahkar Nagar, Tulsibagh Colony,
Near Gajanan Maharaj Math,
Pune, District Pune.
4-D) Sou. Pramlia Suresh Patil,
Age 55 years, Occu. Household,
R/o At Post Paldhi, Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
4-E) Sou. Indumati Jaiwant Ingle,
Age 56 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Building No.6,
Near Shradha Garden, Jawale Park,
In front of Telco, Chinchwadi, Pune
4-F) Dinkar Adhar Patil,
Age 54 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o Paldhi, Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
4-G) Smt. Pratibha Shyam Khalane,
Age 50 years, Occu. Household,
Near Kala Nagar, Government Colony,
Bandra (East), Mumbai
4-H) Deelip Adhar Patil,
Age 48 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Paldhi, Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
4-I) Sou. Kalpana Dinkar Patil,
Age 45 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Paldhi, Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
4-J) Sou. Nita Deelip Patil,
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:10:53 :::
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 5 ))
Age 45 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Paldhi, Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
5. R.N. Patil,
Co-operative Court,
District Jalgaon
6. The Maharashtra State Co-operative
Appellate Court, by its Members:
(i) Shri M.H. Jadhav, Member
(ii) Shri S.P. Ghogre, Member
(Respondent Nos.5 & 6(i) & (ii) deleted
as per leave of Court dated 19.4.2004)
... RESPONDENTS
(No.1 to 3 Orig. Petitioners
Rest Orig. Resp.No.2 to 4)
.....
Shri Deelip Patil Bankar, Advocate for appellant
Shri P.D. Bhosale, Advocate holding for
Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1-A to 1-D & 2
Shri M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent No.3
.....
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED: 24th January, 2018.
JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) :
1. Letters Patent Appeal No.105/1998 is filed by original
respondent No.2 and Letters Patent Appeal No.106/1998 is filed
by original respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 to 3 are the
original petitioners in Writ Petition No.639/1984. These both
Letters Patent Appeals are filed against the order passed by
learned Single Judge of this Court, directing the original
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 6 ))
respondents to hand over the possession of Survey No.242 (Gat
No.403), admeasuring 11 acres and 18 gunthas, situated at
village Paldhi, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon to the original
petitioner.
2. Undisputed facts in between the parties are that, the
respondent No.1 to 3 are the legal representatives of Manikchand
Zavar, who was a borrower of original respondent Jalgaon
People's Co-operative Bank Ltd. and he died on 20.8.1952. An
award came to be passed on 20.12.1953 for recovery of
Rs.12,195/- (with principal amount of Rs.10,000/- and interest of
Rs.2195) under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies
Act, 1925 against the above land owner. On 14.4.1957, original
respondent No.1 Bank obtained a certificate of execution under
Section 59(1(b) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925
(hereinafter referred to as the Old Act for short). On 15.7.1961,
the Collector, Jalgaon issued certificate of transfer for partial
satisfaction of Rs.8000/- and out of Rs.12,195/- under Section
59-A of the Old Act in respect of above said agricultural land.
Consequently, the said land came to be transferred to Jalgaon
People's Co-operative Bank, in pursuance to the certificate issued
by the Collector, Jalgaon.
3. On 15.2.1963, the Bank arranged auction and there
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 7 ))
was no bid. Therefore, the auction was cancelled. Again fresh
auction was arranged on 20.2.1964, in which Avadabai Adhar
Patil was the highest bidder and, therefore, that bid was accepted
by the Bank. On the said day, Avadabai Adhar Patil paid
Rs.4325/- to the Bank towards 25% of bid amount. On
21.10.1964, she paid another installment of Rs.6000/- to the
Bank. After receiving total amount of Rs.10,325/- towards bid
amount, on 24.10.1964, the Bank handed over possession of
above said land to Avadabai Patil, without receiving full amount
of the bid as well as without executing the sale deed in her
favour.
4. As the award amount was not fully satisfied by legal
representatives of Judgment Debtor, on 5.9.1969, the Registrar
issued certificate under Section 98-A of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960. The Bank filed Special Darkhast
No.7/1969 against the sons of late Manikchand Zavar for
recovery of balance amount of Rs.11,191/-. In that Darkhast
proceedings, sons of Manikchand Zavar raised objection of
limitation, which was accepted by the Court. Against that order,
the Bank preferred appeal in the High Court, and on 6.7.1972,
the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by the High
Court. Thereafter, the original petitioners filed Writ Petition
No.1912/1983, which was re-numbered by this Bench as Writ
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 8 ))
Petition No.3206/1989, wherein vires of Section 98-A certificate
was challenged. The High Court granted conditional stay in
favour of debtor petitioners by directing them to deposit amount
of Rs.11,191/-, which was paid by debtor petitioners and
subsequently, Writ Petition No.3206/1989 was withdrawn on
25.7.1996. In the result, Special Darkhast No.7/1969 came to
an end.
5. On 2.9.1973, petitioners filed Special Civil Suit
No.96/1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon
for restoration of possession of above said land against the Bank,
which was already handed over by the Bank to Avadabai Adhar
Patil on 24.10.1964. By filing written statement in the suit, the
Bank challenged the tenability of the suit. After realizing the
legal position, debtor petitioners filed withdrawal pursis. Learned
civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon granted permission for
withdrawal of the suit and for filing fresh suit subject to condition
precedent that the plaintiff shall pay cost of the suit to the Bank.
6. Thereafter, in the month of November 1974, debtor
petitioners submitted an application referring the dispute before
the Registrar, Co-operative Societies at Jalgaon, numbered as
ABN/JGN/5/1974 for adjudication of rights and prayed the relief
including restoration of possession of the above said land. That
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 9 ))
dispute was referred to the Court of Officer on Special duty, Co-
operative Department, Jalgaon and re-numbered as
BAN/7280/1974. The Bank appeared there and filed written
statement on 16.1.1975 and raised the objection to the claim.
The dispute was listed before the Co-operative Court and re-
registered as Arbitration Suit No.ABN/GA/5/1975. After hearing
the parties, and after recording necessary evidence, on
30.9.1996, the Co-operative Court allowed the dispute and
directed the Bank to render the Accounts to the disputant
debtors and to restore the possession of above said land to the
debtors if the debt was fully satisfied. It was held that, the claim
was within limitation.
7. Against that award, Appeal No.143/1977 was
preferred by the petitioners/ debtors and Appeal No.145/1977
was filed by the Bank and auction purchaser of the land. On
11.11.1983, the Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the
Appeal No.143/1977 filed by debtors and allowed the Appeal
No.145/1977 filed by Bank and auction purchaser. In the result,
the judgment and award passed by Co-operative Court was set
aside.
8. That judgment and award was challenged before the
learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.639/1984
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 10 ))
which was renumbered as Writ Petition No.303/1991. The
learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the
Bank and auction purchaser to restore the possession of the land
to the debtors within two months from the date of order and free
from any encumbrances. The Collector, Jalgaon was also
directed to ensure the implementation of that order.
9. Heard strenuous arguments for appellants as well as
learned counsel for respondents. The contention of learned
Advocate for the appellants is that, the respondents are all along
defaulter in payment of the award amount, which compelled the
appellant Bank to file execution proceedings. Even under
execution proceedings, when the land of the respondent was put
in auction, it could not be sold out and in the result, invoking the
powers under Section 100 of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 (New Act for short), the Collector transferred
the disputed land in favour of the Bank under Section 100(2) of
the New Act and the Bank was put in possession of the said
agricultural land. According to appellants, even under Rule 85 of
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules), the Bank is fully empowered to sell the
said land and the proceedings of the sale can be applied to defray
the expenses of the sale and other expenses incurred by the
Society (Bank) and towards the payment of arrears due from
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 11 ))
respondent defaulters. Learned Advocates have pointed out that,
even the land of respondents was put in for auction at two
occasions. Neither respondents nor any legal heir of original
debtor had taken pains to pay the balance decretal amount
towards satisfaction of the decree. They also pointed out that, in
fact, the land was transferred in favour of the society towards
partial satisfaction of decretal amount and for balance amount,
separate execution proceeding was filed by the Bank. According
to learned Advocates for appellants, the respondents have not
deposited the balance decretal amount even at the time of
auction sale and, therefore, they cannot question the legality of
auction sale. Their next limb of argument is that, the dispute
was referred in the year 1974 i.e. after more than 10 years from
the date of auction sale and, therefore, under Section 92 of the
New Act, the reference is barred by limitation. Our attention was
drawn towards judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
No.3511/2011 (Smt. Pratibha Ghanekar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others).
10. Learned Advocate for respondents submitted that,
under Rule 107, in auction sale of defaulter's property, the
auction purchaser is under obligation to deposit full price within
15 days from the date of auction. In the present case, the
auction purchaser did not deposit the full auction price within 15
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 12 ))
days and, therefore, the auction sale is void.
11. His next limb of the argument is that, the dispute in
between the parties does not fall within the category of dispute
referred in Section 92 of the New Act and, therefore, the
limitation for filing dispute before the Co-operative Court is not
six years, but as the claim of the respondents is for restoration of
possession of the disputed land, Article 65 of the Limitation Act
will be applicable. He submitted that, as the possession of the
disputed land was delivered to the auction purchaser in the year
1964, the reference filed by the respondents before the Co-
operative Court in the month of November 1974 is well within
limitation.
12. The next contention of learned Advocate for the
respondents is that, under Rule 85(15), on full satisfaction of the
due amount out of income of land in possession of the appellant
Bank, the respondents are entitled to claim restoration of
possession. He placed reliance on M/s Shilpa Shares &
Securities Vs. National Co-operative Bank Ltd., reported in
AIR 2007 SC 1874; Narayan D. Woody Vs. South Indian
Co-operative Bank Ltd., reported in 2006(5) Bom.C.R. 587
and Chhatrapati Sambhaj Maharaj Sahakari Patsanstha
Maryadit Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies &
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 13 ))
anr., reported in 2012(5) Bom.C.R. 773.
13. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel
for the respondent is regarding tenability of these Letters Patent
Appeals. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, as
the learned Single Judge passed order under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against such order Letters Patent Appeal is
not tenable. He relied on Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs.
State of Gujarat & others reported in 2015(5) ABR 787,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, an order passed by
Civil Court can only be assailed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal in
respect of an order passed by Single Judge dealing with an order
arising out of proceeding from Civil Court would not lie before the
Division Bench.
14. Regarding preliminary objection raised by learned
counsel for the respondent, about tenability of these Letters
Patent Appeals, it is suffice to say that, the order passed by he
Co-operative Appellate Court was challenged by the original
Judgment Debtors under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, obviously, Letters Patent Appeal against the order
passed by learned Single Judge is tenable before this Division
Bench. In the result, the preliminary objection raised by learned
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 14 ))
Advocate for respondent is dispelled.
15. At the outset, we have put on record the above
referred undisputed facts in between the parties and the events
which ultimately resulted into filing of these Letters Patent
Appeals. Thus, it is evident that, on 20.12.1953, award was
passed against the original land owner Manikchand Zavar, who
was the borrower of land from Bank and the award amount was
of Rs.12,195/-. The Bank obtained certificate of execution under
Section 59(1)(b) of the Old Act and at last on 15.7.1961, the
Collector, Jalgaon issued transfer certificate for partial
satisfaction of Rs.8000/- in respect of the disputed agricultural
land and the said land was transferred to Bank in pursuance to
this certificate. Subsequently, for partial satisfaction of this
outstanding decretal amount, the suit land was put in auction on
15.2.1963; for want of bid, the auction was cancelled. At last on
20.2.1964, in the fresh auction, appellant Avadabai Patil was the
highest bidder at Rs.17,251/- and on the date of auction, she
paid 25% amount to the Bank. Undisputedly, at the time of
these both auctions, the legal representatives of original land
owner were present and they had every opportunity to purchase
the disputed land in auction on payment of the balance decretal
amount, as under Rule 85(13), first option is given to the
defaulter to purchase his own own property. However, on
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 15 ))
20.2.1964 i.e. the date of second auction, the respondents did
not take opportunity to purchase the suit land in auction. Rule
85(15) provides that, when Society has realized all its dues
under the order in execution, of which the property was
transferred, from the proceeds of management of property, if the
property is unsold, it shall be restored to the defaulter. Thus,
Rule 85(15) makes it clear that, once the property is sold in
auction under Rule 85(13) read with Rule 107, in that event, the
original owner cannot claim for restoration of possession by
offering due amount to the decree holder.
16. Rule 107(13) of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Rules, 1961 reads as under :
"13(i) Where immovable property has been sold by
the Recovery Officer, any person either owning such
property or holding any interest therein by virtue of a
title acquired before such sale may apply to have the
sale set aside on his depositing with the Recovery
Officer :-
(a) for payment to the purchaser a sum equal to 5
per cent of the purchase money; and
(b) for payment to the applicant, the amount of
arrears specified in the proclamation of sale as
that for the recovery of which the sale was
ordered together with interest therein and the
expenses of attachment, if any, and sale and
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 16 ))
other costs due in respect of such amount, less
amount which may since the date of such
proclamation have been received by the
applicant.
(ii) If such deposit and application are made within
thirty days from the date of sale, the Recovery Officer
shall pass an order setting aside the sale and shall
repay to the purchaser, the purchase money so far as
it has been deposited, together with the 5 per cent
deposited by the applicant.
Provided that, if more persons than one have
made deposit and application under this sub-rule, the
application of the first depositor to the officer
authorised to set aside the sale, shall be accepted.
(iii) If a person applies under sub-rule (14) to set
aside the sale of immovable property, he shall not be
entitled to make an application under this sub-rule.
Provided that, in case the Recovery Officer fails
to handover, possession of the property for any
reason within six months from the date of confirmation
of the sale to the purchaser, amount deposited by the
purchaser may be refunded to him on his demand."
17. Thus, it is evident that even after auction sale of the
above said land, last opportunity was available to the Judgment
Debtors by pre-depositing the amount of arrears specified in
proclamation of sale and 5% of auction purchase money, as
required under Rule 107(13) (i) (a) & (b) of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Rules, 1961. By taking such steps, they
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 17 ))
could have set aside the sale and could have claimed restoration
of possession of above said land.
18. However, in the case at hand, the respondents -
debtors slept over their right to get possession of their land on
payment of the balance decretal amount till 1974 i.e. till filing of
the dispute referred to the Co-operative Court. Even during
pendency of this litigation, on 24.10.1964, the appellant
Avadabai Patil had already obtained possession of the disputed
land on payment of substantial amount to the Bank.
Subsequently, the registered sale deed of the disputed land is
executed in favour of auction purchaser. Thus, by taking
advantage of Rule 85(15), the respondent Judgment Debtor
cannot claim restoration of possession who had lost their right
long back. Even it cannot be ignored that, even after auction of
the disputed land towards partial satisfaction of decretal amount,
the Bank was compelled to file subsequent execution proceedings
for recovery of balance award amount which was ultimately
deposited by debtors in the Petition No.1912/1983, which
was re-numbered by this Bench as Writ Petition
No.3206/1989 . Thus, it is evident that, the respondents are
all along defaulters. Therefore, we find no need to consider other
various points raised by the respondents regarding legality of the
auction sale. When right of the respondents to get restoration of
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 18 ))
possession is extinguished, other questions raised by
respondents regarding legality of auction sale have become
valueless.
19. The case of Chhatrapati Sambhaj Maharaj
Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies & anr., (cited supra) and Narayan D.
Woody Vs. South Indian Co-operative Bank Ltd., (cited
supra) as well as M/s Shilpa Shares & Securities Vs.
National Co-operative Bank Ltd. (cited supra) are
distinguishable for the reason that the auction sale held in the
year 1964 was not challenged by the respondents within the
period of limitation.
20. Another important aspect of this matter is that,
undisputedly, the original borrower was the member of appellant
Co-operative Society. The dispute in between Society and local
representatives of deceased member on account of auction sale
of disputed property. Therefore, this dispute raised by
respondents falls within the ambit of Section 92(1)(b) of the New
Act, which provides limitation of six years from the date on which
the act or omission with reference to which the dispute arose
took place. The disputed auction took place in the year 1964 and
the dispute was referred to Co-operative Court by respondent in
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 19 ))
the month of November 1974 i.e. beyond the period of limitation.
Thus, otherwise also the dispute referred by the respondent
before the Co-operative Court was barred by limitation.
21. In the result, our conclusion is that, the right of
respondents to get restoration of possession of disputed land on
payment of balance decretal amount has already extinguished.
Dispute raised by respondent is also barred by limitation.
However, without considering this important aspect of this case,
the learned Single Judge directed to restore the possession of the
disputed land to the present respondents. The order passed by
learned Single Judge is obviously bad in law and deserves to be
set aside by allowing these Letters Patent Appeals. Accordingly,
we pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Letters Patent Appeal No.105/1998 and Letters Patent
Appeal No.106/1998 are allowed.
(ii) The order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.303/1991 (Aurangabad)/ Writ Petition
No.639/1984 (Bombay) (Balkisan Manekchand Zavar &
others Vs. Jalgaon People's Co-operative Bank Ltd. &
others) is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Dispute bearing Arbitration Suit No.ABN/GA/5/1975
LPA No.105/1998 with
LPA No.106/1998
(( 20 ))
filed before the Co-operative Court, Jalgaon is rejected.
(iv) Civil Applications are disposed of.
(v) No order as to costs.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/
