:1: :1: :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 WRIT PETITION NO.677 OF 2007 Tukaram Dhondiba Jadhav .. Petitioner. Vs. Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Sangli & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2006 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur rejecting the revision application No.242 of 2004 filed by the petitioner under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). The revision was directed against a recovery certificate dated 29.6.2004 issued under section 101 of the Act by the Deputy Registrar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that all the contentions urged by the :2: :2: :2: advocate for the petitioner before the revisional authority have not been dealt with in the impugned order. He submitted that it was specifically contended that the signatures of the petitioner were obtained on the documents by fraud by the respondent-bank for transferring the loan account of the petitioner’s brother in law in the name of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was not principal borrower but he signed the documents as guarantor and the principal borrower was his brother-in-law. It would be advantageous to reproduce the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the revisional authority which reads thus: . "Ld.Advocate Shri Kelkar for applicant contended that the applicant has deposited 50% of recoverable dues as per the Recovery Certificate issued u/s 101 of the M.C.S.Act. Therefore, the present Revision application is maintainable in the eye of law. He further submitted that the applicant is not borrower. The loan advanced by applicants brother in law from the Opponent Bank. Applicant is retired person in the year 1992 and he is getting pension only Rs.4870/- p.m. Applicant has constructed house before 27 years. In the year 1993 the applicant was suffered from paralysis attack and damaged eyesight. The family members are depends on his pension. The applicant never applied for loan or advanced any loan from the opponent Bank and also never executed any loan documents. Applicant has signed the documents only for the purpose of renewal of loan amount o fhis brother in law. The respondent bank was fraudulently transferred the said loan account in the name of the applicant as principal borrower. The bank is :3: :3: :3: showing different purpose of loan in various documents. It means that there is some fraud made by the opponent Bank on the applicant. Actually the applicant was never received a single pai from the opponent Bank. The applicant is denying the documentary evidence produced on record by the opponent Bank particularly the withdrawal slip etc. The opponent Bank was fraudulently used the signed documents to avoid the NPA provisions. The applicant has already filed suit before co-operative Court No.1 Sangli for declaration and permanent injunction which is sub judice. The interest charged on the so called loan account by the opponent Bank was not according to the directives of RBI. Therefore, the Recovery Certificate issued by Dy.Registrar, Miraj was against the provisions of law. He further relied on the cited case law 1994 CTJ page 653 of Appellate Court. Therefore, the said Recovery Certificate be set aside and matter may please be transferred under the Section 91 of the M.C.S.Act." 4. From mere perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed by the revisional authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the revisional authority has not considered the contentions urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner at all and in concluding paragraph has simply recorded that it does not find any merit in the revision. He, therefore, submitted that such a cryptic order is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. In support of this contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Narinder Singh Narinder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Harayana 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 4 and Anr. Vs. State of Harayana 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 4 and Anr. Vs. State of Harayana 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 4 :4: :4: :4: and the judgment of this court in O.K.Vasudevan Vs. O.K.Vasudevan Vs. O.K.Vasudevan Vs. Shri Paras Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Shri Paras Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Shri Paras Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. 2004 (4) Mh.L.J.23. and Ors. 2004 (4) Mh.L.J.23. and Ors. 2004 (4) Mh.L.J.23. 5. It is true, the revisional authority has not recorded long reasons but from perusal of the order it is clear that having found signatures of the petitioner on all the documents and after perusing the record, it has dismissed the revision. In this backdrop, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner I went through the compilation of the documents placed on record. He invited my attention to a notice dated 12th June, 2001 issued by the bank’s advocate addressed to the petitioner wherein the purpose for loan was mentioned as development of land while in the statement of accounts the purpose for obtaining the loan was mentioned as repairs of the house and purchase of furniture. He also invited my attention to the account extracts of the brother in law and the petitioner to contend that on the very same day the amount of Rs.4,90,000/- was deposited by his brother in law and closed the loan account whereas a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was credited in the loan account of the petitioner. It is on the basis of this discrepancy learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner’s signatures were :5: :5: :5: obtained on the documents by fraud. 6. I perused the entire record placed before me, in order to appreciate the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute his signatures on the documents on the basis of which the bank obtained recovery certificate under section 101 of the Act. According to the petitioner his signatures were obtained by fraud on all those documents by the bank. Admittedly, the signatures were obtained by the bank on the relevant documents sometime in the year 2000. The petitioner, however, appear to have made grievance of obtaining his signatures on all the documents by fraud for the first time in September, 2003. The documents on record clearly show that the loan was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and it was disbursed in his favour on 31st March, 2000. The notice issued by the bank to which my attention was invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner was issued on 12th June, 2001 and it was received by the petitioner in June, 2001. At that stage the petitioner did not make any grievance such as the one made in the instant proceedings regarding alleged fraud. The documents on record clearly show that the defence of fraud is baseless, unfounded and after thought. The documents on record support the case of :6: :6: :6: the Bank and in view thereof the Divisional Joint Registrar has rightly observed that the loan was obtained by the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are of no avail to the petitioner. Considering the finding of facts recorded by the authorities below and as I find sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the findings of fact, in my opinion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)