1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION W. NO.2055/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.658/2009 (Decided) Petitioner :- Vinod s/o Shankarrao Darwhekar aged about 47 years, Occupation – Business, R/o Plot No.358, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur. ...Versus... Respondents:- 1. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur. 2. The Assistant Registrar/District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha. 3. Special Recovery & Sale Officer, Maharanapratap Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt., Pulgaon, Distt. Wardha. 4. Maharanapratap Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt., Pulgaon, Distt. Wardha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri H.D. Dubey, Adv. for applicant] [Shri C.N. Adgokar, AGP for respdt. Nos.1 & 2] [Shri S.V. Sohoni, Adv. for respdt. Nos.3 & 4] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 24.09.2009 1. Heard. 2. It appears that this Court had made an order on 11.02.2009 in Writ Petition No.658/2009, directing the petitioner to furnish solvent surety to the extent of balance 2 amount. Instead, the petitioner furnished bank guarantee without permission of this Court to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and solvent surety for the remaining amount. It appears that the writ petition was then finally decided on 6.7.2009 by this Court and learned Counsel for both parties were negligent in not obtaining any orders in relation to the said solvent surety or bank guarantee. However, it appears that respondent No.4 on its own encashed the bank guarantee without making any application or without seeking any permission from this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent No.4 states that he had filed civil application for speaking to minutes, claiming therein leave to encash bank guarantee which was furnished with the society and this Court made an order on 17.8.2009, permitting respondent No.4 to encash the bank guarantee. 4. I have seen the order, dated 17.8.2009 and I find that even by remote interpretation the order does not show any such permission to encash bank guarantee. This Court cannot be guided by applications and what is required is the order of the Court. In the absence of any order of the Court, I do not think respondent No.4 was at all justified in encashing the bank guarantee, obviously which was furnished with reference to the interim order of this Court that was made on 11.2.2009. The contention raised by Advocate Shri Sohoni is, therefore, rejected. 5. In view of the above discussion, this application will have to be allowed reserving liberty in favour of respondent No.4 to take such steps to recover their dues 3 as per the existing procedure. 6. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause – (i). No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw