Parashuram Maruti Khankar vs Ahmednagar Sahakari Bank Ltd And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17379 Bom

                                                                              18-rpwst-1973-2020 in wp-2498-2006


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.1973 OF 2020
                                                          IN
                                             WRIT PETITION NO.2498 OF 2006

                             Parashuram Maruti Khankar                   ..Peitioner
                                   Vs.
                             Ahmednagar Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors.         ..Respondents
                                                            ----
                             Mr.P.M. Khankar Petitioner-in person.
                             Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State.
NILAM
          Digitally signed
          by NILAM
          SANTOSH
                                                            ----
SANTOSH
                                                          CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

KAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2021.12.15 10:29:16 +0530

DATE : 14 DECEMBER 2021

P.C.

. By this Petition the Petitioner is seeking review of the judgment and order dated 2 January 2020 in Writ Petition No.2498 of 2006.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the Petition may be stated thus.

That the Respondent No.1 Ahmednagar Sahakari Bank Ltd had advanced a loan of Rs.2 lakhs to the Respondent No.2-Co- operative Society for its 'bill discounting facility'. The Respondent No.1 filed a dispute for recovery of Rs.2,76,244.75 paise against the

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4 18-rpwst-1973-2020 in wp-2498-2006

Respondent No.2 under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act ('Act' for short). The said dispute, filed in the year 1992 is pending before the Co-operative Court at Mumbai.

3. The Petitioner happens to be one of the Directors of the said society. The Petitioner raised a preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court to entertain the dispute and on the ground of limitation. It appears that the Co-operative Court refused to uphold the preliminary objection which was challenged before the Co-operative Appellate Court. The Co-operative Appellate Court found that the Co-operative Court had jurisdiction. However, the Co-operative Appellate Court did not advert to the question of limitation. Hence, this Court by an order dated 30 November 2005 in Writ Petition No.8080 of 2005 directed the Co- operative Appellate Court to decide the preliminary issue of limitation. The Co-operative Appellate Court by a judgment and order dated 18 February 2006 has refused to entertain the preliminary objection on the ground of limitation, holding that the limitation would be governed by Section 92(1)(b) of the said Act. It was this order which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.2498 of 2006.

4. This Court by the judgment and order under review has dismissed the Petition.

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4 18-rpwst-1973-2020 in wp-2498-2006

5. I have heard the Petitioner in person. Perused record.

6. The Petitioner in person has again raised similar ground which has already been raised and considered by this Court in the judgment under review. The Petitioner submitted that it is an 'admitted position' that the Respondent No.2 was not a member of the Respondent No.1. This aspect has been considered by this Court and it has been found that it was never the admitted position. Quite to the contrary it has been the consistent contention on behalf of the Respondent No.1 that there was a resolution passed by the Respondent No.1-Bank on 23 November 1983 for getting the Respondent No.2 enrolled as a nominal member for obtaining the bill discounting facility. Thus this Court found that no interference is required in the judgment of the Co-operative Court.

7. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on Section 58 of the Evidence Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganmani Anasuya & Ors V/s. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & Ors.1 and Shreedhar Govid Kamerkar V/s. Yashwant Govind Kamerkar and Anr2 is misplaced as the membership issue was never an admitted matter.

1    AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2380
2    (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 481

         N.S. Kamble                                                  page 3 of 4
                                                18-rpwst-1973-2020 in wp-2498-2006

8. Incidentally this Court has found that even if the matter is governed by Section 92(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act, issue of limitation would be a disputed question of law and fact and would depend upon several factors such as acknowledgment in writing, if any, and/or repayment which are all questions of fact. Even issue whether the Respondent No.2 was indeed enrolled as a member of the Respondent No.1, can be gone into at the trial. Thus there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

C.V. BHADANG, J.

      N.S. Kamble                                                  page 4 of 4