1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3799 OF 2004. Deepak Mahipatrai Shah and another ... Petitioners. Versus Padmashri Dr.Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Shakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Pravaranagar, Tq. Shrirampur, and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.A.Nagargoje, advocate for the petitioners. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 22.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are the minor sons of the borrower who was running an Industrial Unit called M/s Aminex Alkalies Ltd. The Cooperative 2 Court held that the father of the petitioners was liable to pay the amount to the sugar factory. The properties of the Industrial Unit came to be attached. The contention of the petitioners was that the properties can not be attached because the same were transferred in their name and the shares of the Industrial Unit were transferred by their father to them. The objection was rejected by the trial Court as well as the Maharashtra State Cooperative Court. It appears that while deciding W.P.No.4560/1999, this Court confirmed the attachment order. The transfer of the shares or any property by the father in the name of the minor sons would not entitle them to object the attachment and sale of the properties during execution of the decree. The concurrent findings of the facts can not be interfered with. There is no perversity apparent on the face of record. The disputed question of fact also can not be gone into the Writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp379904