Dismissed¶46

Rubina Salim Shaikh and Anr. v. Omshri Ganesh Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Mydt Thr. Authorized Officer and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2025WP/11727/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cooperative society loan recovery dispute under S. 91, Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960; borrower-wife and husband-guarantor members; plea of non-disbursement and fraud by society's secretary rejected; disbursement in two parts, Rs. 3.95 lakhs by cheque withdrawn on signed counterfoil, balance to savings account; withdrawal slip, cheque counterfoil and statement of account admitted in evidence; failure to cross-examine; four-year silence of borrowers; Appellate Court award of Rs. 6,52,581/- with 15% p.a. interest upheld; writ petition dismissed; Bombay High Court Kolhapur Circuit Bench; S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; Writ Petition No. 11727 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed. ¶46

Rubina Salim Shaikh and Anr. Vs Omshri Ganesh Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Mydt Thr. Authorized Officer and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the loan amount was actually disbursed to petitioner no. 1, in light of the written-statement plea that the society's secretary obtained signatures on the loan documents but never disbursed the loan amount to her. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Disbursement of the loan amount was in two parts: Rs. 3.95 lakhs was paid to the borrower by way of cheque, withdrawn by petitioner no. 1 by signing the counterfoil, and the balance was transferred to her savings account; the witness of the disputant society produced the documents on record, and the petitioners did not cross-examine him on those documents nor dispute them during the trial.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The withdrawal slip and counterfoil of the cheque were placed on record and admitted in evidence, and the statement of account maintained in due course of business was also filed on record; these justify the claim of the respondent-society.

¶40

Key takeaways

Endorsing the Appellate Court's observation, it is difficult to believe that the Chairman and Secretary would indulge in fraud against a member of the Managing Committee of the society, and the petitioners' silence for almost four years from the date of sanction and disbursement of the loan speaks volumes (the petitioners never complained about the alleged fraud).ratio¶41
This Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition dismissed. Respondent-cooperative society's recovery dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for Rs. 6,52,581/- (loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- sanctioned and disbursed on 3rd December 2014 to petitioner no. 1 at interest @ 15% p.a., against an application of Rs. 5,50,000/- dated 10th September 2014; petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 2 stood as guarantors) had been dismissed by the Cooperative Court, Solapur on the borrowers' plea that the society's secretary obtained signatures on loan documents but never disbursed the amount. By order dated 7th November 2023 in Appeal No. 50 of 2023, the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench at Pune, upheld the award dated 6th April 2023 of Rs. 6,52,581/- with interest @ 15% p.a., finding that disbursement was made in two parts — Rs. 3.95 lakhs by cheque withdrawn by petitioner no. 1 on signing the counterfoil and the balance credited to her savings account — with the withdrawal slip, cheque counterfoil and statement of account admitted in evidence, on which the petitioners did not cross-examine the society's witness, and their silence for almost four years belying the fraud plea. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J. found no reason to interfere with the Appellate Court's findings of fact and dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

wp-11727-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11727 OF 2024

¶3

Rubina Salim Shaikh,

¶4

Age 49 years, Occup. Household

¶5

Salim Sayyadsahab Shaikh, Age 55 years, Occup. Business. Both are Residing at post Malinagar, Taluka- Malshiras, Dist. Solapur. Versus

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Omshri Ganesh Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Mydt. Registered under the provisions of M.C.S Act 1960, Having its office at; Malinagar, Tal. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur. Through Authorized Officer

¶9

Shri. Panjabrao Dnyandeo Shinde Age 49 years, Occup. Agri, Residing at post Bijawadi, Taluka Malshiras, Dist. Solapur

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Adv. Kedar Lad a/w. Adv. Shekhar V. Mane i/b. Adv. Prabhakar M. Jadhav, Advocate for petitioners.

¶12

Adv. Vishwanath S. Talkute a/w. Adv. Sampada S. Patil a/w. Adv. Pratik Bhojane, Advocate for respondents.

¶13

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 3, 2025

¶14

JUDGMENT:

¶15

1. Petitioners impugn order dated 7th November 2023 passed

¶16

by Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench

ADN

wp-11727-2024.doc

at Pune in Appeal No. 50 of 2023, thereby upholding the judgment and award dated 6th April 2023 passed by Cooperative Court, Solapur in Co-operative Case No. 280 of 2018.

¶21

Respondent–Cooperative Society filed a dispute under Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 against petitioners for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,52,581/-. It is contention of petitioners that opponents are its members. On 10th September 2014 opponent no. 1 asked for a loan of Rs. 5,50,000/-. On 3rd December 2014 society sanctioned soon and disbursed a loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- toPetitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 3 stood as guarantors for loan. Petitioners agreed to pay interest @ 15% p.a. She executed documents such as a promissory note and Karjrokha. After disbursement of loan, she defaulted in repayment. As on 31st May 2018, an amount of Rs. 6,52,581/- was due and outstanding from petitioners.

¶22

Petitioners filed a written statement and contended that secretary of respondent society exercised fraud. He obtained signatures on loan documents but he never disbursed loan amount to her.

¶23

The Cooperative Court framed issues, recorded evidence of

ADN

wp-11727-2024.doc

parties, and finally dismissed dispute. Aggrieved by decision of Cooperative Court, respondent no. 1-society filed Appeal No. 50 of 2023 before Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, which is allowed dispute and passed an award of Rs. 6,52,581/along with interest @ 15% p.a. against petitioners. Hence, this writ petition.

¶28

Mr. Kedar Lad, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that specific defence that loan was never disbursed to petitioners was raised in written statement. Trial Court had rightly appreciated aforesaid defence and dismissed the dispute. However, Appellate Court erroneously set aside order of Cooperative Court passed award.

¶29

Per contra, Mr. Vishwanath Talkute, learned Advocate appearing for respondents, supports impugned order passed by Appellate Court. He points out that petitioners never disputed execution of loan documents, but have taken a novel plea that amount was not disbursed. Appellate Court has rightly appreciated pleading and evidence on record while neglecting defence of petitioners, eventually, passed an award in dispute filed by society.

¶30

Having considered submissions advanced by learned

ADN

wp-11727-2024.doc

Advocate appearing for respective parties and perusal of documentary evidence tendered into service, it can be observed that petitioners are husband and wife. Petitioner no. 2 was a member of Managing Committee of respondent-society. Loan was sanctioned in favour of petitioner no. 1. Indisputably, petitioner no. 1 applied for financial aid of Rs. 5,50,000/- from respondentsociety for construction of her house. She executed all loan documents, i.e., loan agreement, demand promissory note, and surety bond. In light of aforesaid background, Trial Court accepted defence of petitioners. It observed that since loan agreement, demand promissory note, and surety bond have been admitted by petitioner no. 1, primary burden has been discharged by society. Petitioners are endeavoring to make out a case that Secretary and Chairman of society have exercised fraud upon them.

¶35

Pertinently, petitioners never complained about such fraud. It is their case that Secretary and Chairman prepared a bearer cheque in the name of opponent no. 1, encashed the same from Solapur District Central Cooperative Bank, and misappropriated the amount. Record shows that disbursement of loan amount was in two parts: an amount of Rs. 3.95 lakhs was paid to borrower by

ADN

wp-11727-2024.doc

way of cheque, which was withdrawn by petitioner no. 1 by signing counterfoil, and balance amount was transferred to her savings account. During course of cross-examination, a question was put to witness of disputant society as to whether such documents were available with him, to which he answered in affirmative, so also and produced those documents on record. Pertinently, petitioners did not cross-examine witness on aforesaid documents. There is nothing on record depicting that petitioners ever disputed those documents during the course of trial.

¶40

The withdrawal slip and counterfoil of cheque are placed on record and admitted in evidence. The statement of account maintained in due course of business is also filed on record. It justifies claim of respondent-society.

¶41

Appellate Court has rightly observed that it is difficult to believe that Chairman and Secretary would indulge in fraud against member of Managing Committee of society. Silence of petitioners for almost four years from the date of sanction and disbursement of loan speaks volume.

¶42