Dismissed

Shri Arvind Digambar Bhat v. Shri Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2016WP/2851/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court. The Court upheld the requirement for the petitioner to deposit 25% of the award amount and furnish security for the balance to restore a disputed debt, rejecting arguments regarding the nature of the partnership and the respondent's failure to produce account statements.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Shri Arvind Digambar Bhat Vs Shri Suvarna… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

DSS

¶2

901-wp-2851-16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2851 OF 2016

¶5

Arvind D. Bhat .. Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

Shri. Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. and ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Ms Anjali N. Helekar for the Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 29 JULY 2016.

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19 July 2014 made by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court partly allowing Revision Application No. 17 of 2014 instituted by the respondent No.1 society.

¶12

2] The respondent No.1 society had instituted Dispute No. 8 of 2008 before the Cooperative Court, Pune. By an ex-parte order dated 17 May 2008, the Cooperative Court had directed the opponents, which includes the petitioner herein to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,70,44,739.73 together with interests (future) at the rate of 16% per annum, with quarterly rest on the principal amount from

¶13

1 August 2007 till the payment of entire dues.

1/5

DSS

901-wp-2851-16

3] The petitioner, vide Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2011, applied for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 17 May 2008 before the Cooperative Court. By order dated 28 January 2014, the Cooperative Court allowed the Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2011, set aside the ex - parte order dated 17 May 2008 and restored the Original Dispute No. 8 of 2008 for consideration, in accordance with law.

¶18

4] The respondent No.1 society, aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28 January 2014 instituted Revision Application No. 17 of 2014 before the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai. This revision came to be partly allowed and the operative portion of the impugned order dated 19 July 2014 reads thus:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Revision is partly allowed.

¶21

The order of the trial Court restoring the dispute is modified only to the extent of condition of making 25% of the amount of Award and furnishing solvent security by the Opponents jointly and severally for the remaining amount of the Award. The 25% amount be deposited in the Court by the Opponents jointly and severally within two months and the same be invested in any nationalised bank. Such deposit would be without any prejudice to the defence of the Opponents and the successful party to the dispute would be entitled to this amount.

¶22

The trial Court may pass necessary order regarding its disposal in the final Judgment and Award of the dispute.

2/5

DSS

901-wp-2851-16

5] This means that the restoration of the original dispute has not been interfered with. However, the same has been made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the award amount and furnish solvent security in respect of the balance.

¶27

6] Ms Helekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Revisional Court was not justified in imposing the condition with regard to deposit and furnish of solvent security. She submitted that the material on record indicates that the petitioner was only a sleeping partner and further, at no stage the respondent No.1 Society issued any notice with regard to non service of the amount of loan obtained by the Partnership Firm. Ms Helekar also pointed out that the statement of account had not been produced by the respondent No.1 society, at the stage when the ex-parte order was made. Taking into consideration of all these circumstances, Ms Helekar submitted that the imposition of the condition for restoration was uncalled for and ought to be interfered with.

¶28

7] With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, the record has been perused, including in particular the written statement which has been filed by the petitioner, consequent upon

3/5

DSS

901-wp-2851-16

the restoration of the original dispute. The written statement nowhere disputes the factum of receipt of amount by the Partnership Firm, of which, the petitioner is/was undoubtedly a partner. The defence that no proper notice was furnished with regard to nonservice of loan amount, at least prima facie , does not inspire any confidence. The issue of the petitioner being a sleeping partner does not appear to have been raised in so many terms in the written statement. In any case, even assuming that such a defence has been raised, the same, at least prima facie , does not affect the right of the respondent No.1 society to recover the amount, if found due. Ultimately, it would thereafter be open to the petitioner to recover such amount from the remaining partners, if an appropriate case to such effect is indeed made out by the petitioner.

¶33

8] Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the Revisional Court was entirely justified in imposing the condition, which it has imposed in the impugned order. It must be noted that the original dispute was instituted in the year 2008 and even though, the ex-parte order has been set aside, it is clear that the recovery proceedings have been delayed for well over eight years for

4/5

DSS

901-wp-2851-16

reasons more attributable to the petitioner than the respondent No.1.

¶38

9] If the petitioner is indeed serious in contesting the proceedings, such seriousness is required to be demonstrated by making deposit of 25% of the award amount and offering solvent security for the balance. The impugned order which directs precisely this, suffers neither from any illegality nor any jurisdictional error.

¶39

10] For the aforesaid reasons, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶40

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶41

dinesh

¶42

5/5

Shri Arvind Digambar Bhat v. Shri Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Arvind Digambar Bhat v. Shri Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

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

Vilas Laxman Apte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Shakir Mohd. Ebrahim Vs Ms. Zakia Shakir Ebrahim

Mr. Hardik Rajesh Parikh Vs Mrs. Ruju Hardik Parikh Nee Ruju Anil Rathod

Teachers Association for Non-Aided Polytechnics Kolhapur (Tnfnap) and Ors. Vs Shri. Milind Shivajirao Jagtap and Ors.

M/S. Meuse Jupiter Business and Luxury Hotel Vs Divisional Commissioner Nashik Division, Nashik and Ors.

Sau. Lankabai Damu Gondake Vs the Dy. Collector and Ors.