Dismissed¶14

The Buldhana District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Buldhana by Its Authorised Person v. Pramod Raghunath Gavande

Bombay HC8 Oct 2025WP/2318/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Shri Pramod Raghunath Gavande; WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2024; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; 2025:BHC-NAG:10450; Cooperative Court Akola Dispute Case No.147/2002 order dated 13/01/2020; compromise between bank and opponent Nos.3 and 4 recorded by Cooperative Court and confirmed by Cooperative Appellate Court Mumbai Bench at Nagpur; no reason to interfere with orders of both Courts below; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs; liberty to seek clarification/modification refused; advocates A.P.Wachasundar (petitioner) and Kunal Pande (respondent); decided 08-10-2025 by Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶14

The Buldhana District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Buldhana by Its Authorised Person Vs Pramod Raghunath Gavande — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the application filed by opponent Nos.3 and 4 before the Cooperative Court was maintainable and in accordance with the record, there being allegedly no compromise between the bank and opponent Nos.3 and 4 on record. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The Cooperative Court had specifically recorded that the bank admitted the compromise arrived at between the parties, and that recordal was confirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

There being no reason for the High Court to interfere with the orders passed by both the Courts below, the petition stood dismissed.

¶14

Key takeaways

The Court refused the petitioner's stage prayer for liberty to file an appropriate application before the Cooperative Court seeking clarification/modification to point out that the finding about the compromise was incorrectly recorded, since the facts and findings were already recorded by the Courts below.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 2318 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:10450), decided 08-10-2025 by Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J. — The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. petitioned against the order dated 13/01/2020 of the Judge, Cooperative Court, Akola in Dispute Case No.147/2002, whereby the application of opponent Nos.3 and 4 was allowed and the dispute against them dismissed; the bank's appeal before the Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench at Nagpur was also dismissed. Holding: the Cooperative Court had specifically recorded that the bank admitted the compromise arrived at between the parties, and the Appellate Court confirmed that recordal; accordingly the Court found no reason to interfere with the orders of both Courts below, dismissed the petition with no order as to costs, and declined liberty to seek clarification/modification of the recorded compromise finding.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:10450

¶2

1 34-wp 2318.2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2024

¶5

( The Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Shri Pramod Raghunath Gavande )

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr. A.P.Wachasundar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Kunal Pande, Advocate for respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. OCTOBER 08, 2025

¶9

Heard Mr. Wachasundar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kunal Pande, learned counsel for respondent.

¶10

By way of present petition, the petitioner bank has challenged the order dated 13/01/2020 passed by the learned Judge, Cooperative Court, Akola in Dispute Case No.147/2002, wherein the application filed by the opponent Nos.3 and 4 in the dispute came to be allowed and dispute against them came to be dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner bank submitted that the application filed by the opponent Nos.3 and 4 before the Cooperative Court is not maintainable and is not as per the record. There was no such compromise between the bank and opponent No.3 and 4 on record, therefore, allowing the application by the learned Cooperative Court is contrary to the record. The order passed by the learned Cooperative Court is not accordance with the record available. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner bank has filed an appeal before the Cooperative Appellate Court Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur and same was also dismissed.

¶12

KOLHE

¶13

2 34-wp 2318.2024.odt

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that there was a compromise and in the order same is recorded by the Cooperative Court. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Judge, Cooperative Court, wherein the specific observation has been made to the effect that bank has admitted about the compromise arrived between the parties which has been recorded by the learned Judge Cooperative Court and is confirmed by the Appellate Court. As such, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the order passed by both the Courts below. In view of that petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer that liberty may kindly be granted to the petitioner bank to file an appropriate application before the Cooperative Court for seeking clarification/modification in order to pointing out that findings about compromise was incorrectly recorded, such prayer can not be considered. I am not inclined to grant such a liberty once the facts and findings are already recorded by the Courts below.

¶16

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

¶17

KOLHE

The Buldhana District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Buldhana by Its Authorised Person v. Pramod Raghunath Gavande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Buldhana District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Buldhana by Its Authorised Person v. Pramod Raghunath Gavande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Balkisan Ishwarchand Goyal, Proprietor, M/S. Mahalaxmi Petroleum Services, Mul Vs Smt. Harshal Kumaar Chiplunkar and Others

Harikishan S/O Asaramji Chandak (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs Parshwanath Digamber Jain Deosthan Sanstha Thr. Joint Secretary, Shri. Kailas Mahendrakumar Singhai

Sk. Daulat Sk. Manwar and Another vs Genda W/O Abdulla

Jijau Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Amravati Thr. Chief Executive Officer vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Cooperation Department, Mumbai and Others

Chief Executive Officer, Yavatmal District Supervision Co-Op. Soc., Yavatmal Vs Pankaj Tukaram Gawande

Municipal Council Achalpur, Thr. Chief Officer, Achalpur, Amravati vs Vinayak Dadarao Taywade (Deceased) Thr. His Lrs. Smt. Usha Wd/O Vinayak Taywade