1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4592 OF 2009 M/s Shrutika Construction & anr .. Petitioners -versus Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd and anr .. Respondents. Shri A.L. Gore, for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM: R. G. KETKAR, J DATED: 28th July, 2009. P.C. 1. The present petition is filed by the original disputant challenging the judgment and award dated 29th September,2008 passed by the learned Judge, Co- operative Court, Thane as also the judgment dated 18th March, 2009, passed by the learned President of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai. By the judgment and order dated 29th September, 2008, 2 the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court, partly decreed the dispute with proportionate cost and declared that the respondent bank had wrongly seized jeep belonging to the disputant No.2 without following due process of law. 2. Being aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Appellate Court which was dismissed. In support of this petition Mr. A.L.Gore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Co- operative Court partly decreed the dispute and held that respondent bank illegally seized the jeep. Against this decision, respondent bank did not file appeal and thus accepted that finding. Once it is established that jeep was illegally seized, the petitioners are entitled to damages on account of unlawful seizure of the jeep. He submitted that the petitioners were getting income of Rs.800/- per day and consequently the courts below ought to have compensated for the loss sustained by the petitioners. 3. I have heard learned counsel Mr.Gore and after going through the material on record I find that jeep was 3 purchased in the year l983. The loan was sanctioned in 2001 and jeep was offered as additional security by the petitioners. It is undisputed that the petitioners have not paid entire loan advanced by the bank. The jeep was sold on 29th March,2001. Considering the fact that jeep was purchased some time in the year l983, it can not be said that it was sold at a lesser price. That apart both the Courts below have recorded finding that the claim made by the petitioner on account of loss of Rs.800/ per day is not established. The findings recorded by the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence on record. I do no find any infirmity or perversity in the orders passed by the Courts below. No case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J)