Dismissed

Sugar Factory Ltd. Thrugh Chairman Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath More and Ors. v. Solapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. , Solapur and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2020WP/10123/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against the rejection of an application to file an additional written statement in a civil money recovery suit. The court rejected the claim, holding that defenses available at the time of filing the original statement could not be raised later, and the lower courts were justified. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim order stood vacated.

Sugar Factory Ltd. Thrugh Chairman Dnyaneshwar… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

Vina khadpe sr.912.wp.10123.2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.10123 OF 2018

¶4

Sugar Factory Ltd. Through …Petitioners Chairman Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath More and ors

¶5

Versus

¶6

Solapur District Central Co-op. …Respondents Bank Ltd., Solapur and anr.

¶7

Mr. M. L. Patil for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Rahul Patil a/w Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondent no.1.

¶9

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 13^th FEBRUARY 2020.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. This petition takes an exception to the order dated 4^th

¶13

May 2018 passed by the Co-operative Court Solapur below Exhibit-91 in CC No.44 of 2014 and to the order dated 18^th August 2018 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench at Pune in Revision Application No.65 of 2018.

¶14

1/4

¶15

Vina khadpe sr.912.wp.10123.2018.doc

¶16

Respondent no.1 herein has fled the dispute before the Co-operative Court for the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,17,21,000/- against the petitioners and respondent No.2. By the application at Exhibit-91, the petitioners sought permission to fle additional written statement. The learned Co-operative Court rejected the said application by order dated 4^th May 2018. The Revisional Court confrmed the said order of the Co-operative Court by order dated 18^th August 2018. Both these orders are impugned in the present petition.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no.1.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out the observations in the order passed by the Revisional Court in paragraph 12 and submitted that perusal of said para would reveal that learned advocate for respondent no.1-bank has submitted before the Revisional Court that he has no objection if application is allowed subject to costs. However, reading of

¶19

2/4

¶20

Vina khadpe sr.912.wp.10123.2018.doc

¶21

paragraph 12 does not indicate that the said submission was made by learned advocate for respondent no.1. This is apparent from the last sentence of the said paragraph, wherein it is recorded that “he even submitted to deposit Rs.1 Lakhs to show his bonafdess. There arises no question of Bnak showing bonafdes and depositing Rs.1,00,000/- . It is, thus, apparent that the said submission was made by the learned advocate for the petitioners before Revisional Court. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in that respect is rejected.

¶22

Admittedly, the defences which the petitioners are now trying to raise by way of fling additional written statement were very much available at the time of fling of written statement.

¶23

The reasons assigned by the petitioners that the Bank assured them of settlement and therfore, the dfences which now they want to raise by fling additional written statement, were not raised in written

¶24

3/4

¶25

Vina khadpe sr.912.wp.10123.2018.doc

¶26

statement can not be accepted in the facts and circumstances of present case as the petitioners contested the dispute by fling their afdavit of examination in chief and fled the application at Exhibit91 at the stage of fnal argument of dispute. Learned Co-operative Court was therefore justifed in rejecting the application and the learned Co-operative Appellate Court was justifed in confrming the said order. No interference is called for in the impugned orders. Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶27

In view of dismissal of Writ Petition, interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶28

[N. R. BORKAR. J]

¶29

Vina A. Khadpe

¶30

Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2020.02.21 22:58:13 +0530

¶31

4/4

Sugar Factory Ltd. Thrugh Chairman Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath More and Ors. v. Solapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. , Solapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugar Factory Ltd. Thrugh Chairman Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath More and Ors. v. Solapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. , Solapur and Anr.

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

Pradip Ramdas Mane Vs the Additional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Pradip Ramdas Mane Vs the Additional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Sou. Rohini Haribhau Pandhare Vs Shri. Vikas Kailsa Sonawane and Ors.

Anusaya Damu Shriram Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sugar Factory Ltd. Thrugh Chairman Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath More and Ors. Vs Solapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. , Solapur and Anr.

Anusaya Damu Shriram Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.