Dismissed

Agrani Yantramag Vinkar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Malangaon and Ors. v. Sangli Dist. Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Sangli

Bombay HC20 Apr 2012WP/297/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three Writ Petitions challenging the Cooperative Appellate Court's refusal to condone a 656-day delay. The Court upheld the Impugned Order, noting the Petitioners were represented and present when the award was pronounced, rendering their claim of ignorance false.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of Writ Petitions No. 297, 298, and 299 of 2012.

Agrani Yantramag Vinkar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

.. 1 .. WP297/12, 298/12, 299/12

¶2

AAB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NOS.297 of 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.298 of 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.299 of 2012

¶5

Agrani Yantramag Vinkar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Malangaon And Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s.

¶6

Sangli Dist. Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd. Sangli. ... Respondent.

¶7

Mr Sachin Pawar for the Petitioner. Mr Manoj A. Patil for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 20^th April, 2012.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Since parties to above three petitions are the same and facts of these petitions are identical, these three petitions are disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court, the Petitioners' Application for condonation of delay of about 656 days occurred in filing Appeal is rejected.

¶11

2 Respondent Bank filed Dispute under section 91 of MCS Act, 1960 against the Petitioners for recovery of the loan amount before the Co operative Court at Sangli. The learned Judge, Cooperative Court allowed

¶12

AAB

¶13

.. 2 .. WP297/12, 298/12, 299/12

¶14

the said Dispute by an Award dated 05/08/2009 and the RespondentBank was held entitled to recover the said amount from the Petitioners.

¶15

3 The Petitioners being aggrieved, filed appeal on 27/07/2011 in the Cooperative Appellate Court and since there was delay of 656 days, application for condonation of delay was preferred. The Cooperative Appellate Court refused to condone the delay and therefore Petitioners are before this Court.

¶16

4 Petitioners made averment in their application for condonation of delay that they were not aware of the award dtd. 05/08/2009 passed by the Cooperative Court and for the first time, they came to know about the award when they received a recovery notice from Special Recovery Officer on 22/06/2011 and thereafter appeal is filed. It is also stated that village Malangaon from which Petitioners hail is drought prone area and therefore the Petitioners were required to migrate from one place to another to earn their livelihood. The Cooperative Appellate Court did not accept this explanation as a “ sufficient cause ” for condonation of delay on the ground that Petitioners were represented by an Advocate and Petitioner No.2 was personally present in the Court when the order was pronounced.

¶17

5 Learned counsel for the RespondentBank, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the petition by filing reply. The Respondent has denied that Petitioners are poor and illiterate. It is also specifically denied that the Petitioners were required to migrate because of drought prevailing in 2009 in village Malangaon.

¶18

.. 3 .. WP297/12, 298/12, 299/12

¶19

AAB

¶20

6 The Petitioners have not produced any document to substantiate their contention that they are poor, illiterate and were required to migrate. Their contention is denied by the Respondent by filing affidavit. Be that as it may. Learned counsel for the RespondentBank tendered copy of the award passed by the Cooperative Court. I have perused the same. Petitioner No.1 was represented by Advocate Salunkhe. The cause title of the award shows that Petitioner No.2 was personally present in the Court when the award was passed. In these circumstances, it cannot lie in the mouth of the Petitioners that they were not aware of the Award passed by the Cooperative Court. The cause given by the Petitioners for condonation of delay is false one. The Cooperative Appellate Court has considered all these aspects and rejected the Petitioner's Application for condonation of delay.

¶21

7 In the abovesaid facts and circumstances, I have no alternative but to concur with the finding recorded by the Cooperative Appellate Court. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

Petitions are therefore, dismissed.

¶23

( Ranjit More, J.)

Agrani Yantramag Vinkar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Malangaon and Ors. v. Sangli Dist. Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Sangli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agrani Yantramag Vinkar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Malangaon and Ors. v. Sangli Dist. Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Sangli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Rajesh Anilkumar Makhecha and Ors. Vs Shri. Pandurang Hasha Patil and Ors.

Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar - Co-Operative Societies

Damji K. Shah and Ors. Vs Shri Vile Parle Gujarati Mandal Chs Ltd.

Shri. Krishnaji Pandurang Patil and Ors. Vs Ecoboard Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Nivrutti Mandu Salunke (Chor) Vs Laxman Pandu Salunke (Chor) and Ors.

The Suruchi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Harish Shriyan, Secreary Vs District Deputy Registrar (Iii), Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai and Ors.