lpa164.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.164 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1383 OF 2007 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10578 OF 2008. 1. Morumal Tanvarmal Makheja, age 68 years. Occu. Nil, r/o Gauri Shankar Apartment, Ganesh Nagar, beind Sub Jail, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Jivatram Morumal Makheja, age 42 years, occu.nil, r/o Gauri Shankar Apartment, Ganesh Nagar, beind Sub Jail, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... APPELLANTS. VERSUS Khandesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon, Golani Market, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for appellants. Shri A.I. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent. ... AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.165 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1382 OF 2007 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10580 OF 2008. lpa164.11 2 1. Morumal Tanvarmal Makheja, age 68 years. Occu. Nil, r/o Gauri Shankar Apartment, Ganesh Nagar, beind Sub Jail, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Jivatram Morumal Makheja, age 42 years, occu.nil, r/o Gauri Shankar Apartment, Ganesh Nagar, beind Sub Jail, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... APPELLANTS. VERSUS Khandesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon, Golani Market, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for appellants. Shri A.I. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent. ... AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.166 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1384 OF 2007 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10582 OF 2008. Jivatram Morumal Makheja, age 42 years, occu.nil, r/o Gauri Shankar Apartment, Ganesh Nagar, beind Sub Jail, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... APPELLANT. VERSUS Khandesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon, Golani Market, Jalgaon, lpa164.11 3 Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for appellants. Shri A.I. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11th April, 2011. PER COURT: 1. The letters patent appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17th June, 2008. By this order, the learned Single Judge has refused to accept the contention of the appellants that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was not justified. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the trial Court and the learned Single Judge have not taken into account the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jolly George v/s Bank of Cochin (AIR 1980 SC 470). 2. We have considered the aforesaid judgment of lpa164.11 4 the Supreme Court and we do not find that the learned Single has committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the trial Court had found that certain amounts have already been deposited by the appellants towards payment of the debts and, therefore, it could not be said that the appellants were unable to pay the dues. The facts in the case before the Supreme Court were different than the facts of the case before us. The order of the learned Single Judge is, therefore, upheld. 3. Apart from this, the present Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable because the writ petitions were filed only under Article 227 of the Constitution. Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. Civil applications stand disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J] ... Kadam/*