1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.312 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.312 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.312 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1737 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1737 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1737 OF 2007 Mr.Uttam Machindra Chougule .. Appellant vs. Special Recovery Officer, Mahesh Co-op.Bank Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Shivajirao Masal for the appellant CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: 9TH JANUARY, 2009 DATE: 9TH JANUARY, 2009 DATE: 9TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The appellant is a guarantor who is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned single Judge on 27.7.07 under which the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by the Special Recovery Officer and permitted deduction of salary from the appellant who is one of the guarantor. 3. The grievance of the appellant is deduction of Rs.5,000/- from his salary is unjustifiable and contrary to the rules as his take home salary is only Rs.12,000/- and, therefore, it requires to be modified. 2 4. The learned counsel submitted that in case of co-guarantor, the respondent Special Recovery Officer is recovering Rs.1000/- per month which is discriminated. 5. In our view, the learned single Judge has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order and has taken care of the fact that the deductions are made in accordance with the rules. 6. The contention of the learned counsel that the deduction should be calculated as per the take home salary cannot be accepted. It has to be calculated out of the gross salary by deducting statutory dues and not other payments made by the appellants against loans drawn by him for various purposes. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is dismissed, no order as to costs. In view thereof, Civil Application No.447 of 2007 does not survive. The same also stands dismissed accordingly. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 3 (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.)