1 wp10118.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10118 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 7. 1. Matter was heard on earlier occasion and opportunity was given to the petitioner to show his bonafide as Advocate Shri. Karpe appearing for respondent nos.4 to 7 pointed out that total amount outstanding today is approximately Rs. 10 Lacs. 2. Advocate Shri. Kale for petitioner today on instructions state that petitioner is in position to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- only. 3. Contentions on merit is, the R.R.C. was issued by Assistant Registrar of Ahmednagar when the branch from which the loan was borrowed is situated at Newasa. It is further urged that notice of R.R.C. proceedings was not properly served as the address of alleged service was 2 wp10118.10 temporary address and petitioner being student on that day was taking education at Aurangabad. Learned Counsel further states that calculation of interest is also arbitrary. He is relying upon the judgment delivered by me at Nagpur to urge that in similar circumstances when the notice was not served, this Court found approach to Revisional Authority under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act unnecessary and Petition is directly entertained. 4. Advocate Shri. R.R. Karpe for respondent nos.4 to 7 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 support the impugned orders. 5. It is apparent that fact of borrowing loan by the petitioner is not in dispute. The service has been effected on the address furnished by him. He did not intimate any change of address to the Authorities. On the contrary, the Annexures with the Petition that in 2004 itself he initiated proceedings before the Co-operative Court for prohibiting the recovery of loan from him and for accounts. Even as per his claim, as against the borrowed sum of Rs. 3 Lacs, as on today the amount deposited is only Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 1 Lacs as per the interim orders of this Court. 6. The approach and arguments above clearly show attitude to defeat loan recovery. I am not observing anything on merits of the arguments advanced by learned 3 wp10118.10 Counsel. The remedy to file Revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is available to the petitioner. Hence, the Petition is not entertained. Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 27.01.2011 gas/wp10118.10