Dismissed

Krishna Deju Shetty and Ors. v. the Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2007WP/2886/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a final award confirming a bank's claim, the Bombay HC found no grounds for interference. The court noted the conclusion of the court below after considering the balance amount and interest, rejecting the petitioners' late submission regarding unadjusted payments due to lack of contrary evidence at the appropriate time.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Krishna Deju Shetty and Ors. Vs the Mogaveera… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

ssm

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2886 OF2007

¶5

Krishna Deju Shetty & Ors....Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Mogaveera Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents.

¶8

Mr.Uttam G. Tahiliani i/by Mr. S.R.Saudagar for the
petitioner.

¶9

Mr. K.B. Adyanthaya for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

¶11

DATED : 19th September, 2007

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1. The petitioners being dissatisfied by the impugned
order, have filed the present writ petition. In the
result, challenging the concurrent finding given by
the court below confirming the original claim as
raised by the respondent Bank.

¶14

2.The facts underlies are:-

¶15

. Some time in the year 1991, the respondent Bank
sanctioned a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lacs
only) upon execution of various documents as a
business deal. The account was operated. Some time
in the year 1991, respondent bank filed dispute No.
CC/I/1093 of 1991 in the Co-operative Court No.1,

¶16

( 2 )

¶17

Mumbai. The dispute was though contested yet the
petitioners failed to submit their case through the
evidence and further failed to justify their defence
as raised.

¶18

3. Therefore, on 28/09/2005, the award came to be
passed. The appeal dated 14/12/2005 being Appeal
No.72 of 2005 dismissed on 09/08/2006 and lastly after
rehearing, the impugned award has now therefore, been
attained the finality. Unless rebutted, the accounts
maintained and filed by the respondent Bank need to be
respected. In the present case, admittedly apart from
documents and record the respondent Bank had led the
evidence to substantiate the same. On the contrary
there is no contra-material on record. The basic
submission is that inspite of repeated payment made
nearly to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lacs
only), the respondent bank has failed to adjust the
same and still both the courts granted the award.
First of all, this submission for the first time in
the writ petition just cannot be considered specially
when the party fails to substantiate the case at the
appropriate time inspite of the opportunity given and
available. Even otherwise, there is a clear finding
given that after considering the amount so paid, the

¶19

( 3 )

¶20

award is for the balance amount with the agreed
interest i.e. 18.5% p.a..

¶21

4. This Court has adjourned this matter for more than
six occasions and given full opportunity to settle the
matter but in vain.

¶22

5. Therefore, considering the reasoning given by both
the courts, I am of the view that there is no case
made out by the petitioners to interfere in the same.

¶23

6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no
order as to costs.

¶24

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Krishna Deju Shetty and Ors. v. the Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Deju Shetty and Ors. v. the Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Motichand R Ahir Vs Radhabai W/O Krishna Sawant and Ors.

Motichand R Ahir Vs Radhabai W/O Krishna Sawant and Ors.

Mr. Uttam Kumar Rao Vs Bank of India

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gangaram S. Chakve and Anr.

Madhav Yashwantrao Kakade Vs Chandrakant Yashwantrao Kakade and Ors.

Shri. Babaji Nana Sawant Vs Shri. Purshottam Bhaskar Mhatre