:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8121 OF 2005 Anil Kumar Dadu Daingade and anr. ..Petitioners Vs Vishal Junnar Sahkari Patpedhi Ltd. and anr. ..Respondents None for the petitioners. Mr. M.N. Dhamal for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : July 12, 2006. Date : July 12, 2006. Date : July 12, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The respondent no.1-society had filed Dispute No.75 of 2001 before the Cooperative Court at Mumbai and the said dispute was allowed by the award dated 16/3/2004. The opponents who are the present petitioners have been ordered to pay to the society an amount of Rs.1,96,034/- as on 10/2/2001 along with further interest at the rate of Rs.18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,22,200/- from 11/2/2001 till its realisation. This award came to be challenged in Appeal No.51 of 2004 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court and the learned President of the said court was pleased to allow the appeal partly, by his Judgment and Order dated 2/4/2005. :2: Hence this petition by the original respondents. 2. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings regarding the petitioners’ liability to pay the loan arrears and the Lower Appellate Court did not agree with the Cooperative court to levy interest at the rate of Rs.18% p.a. Hence while allowing the appeal partly, the rate of interest has been slashed to 12% p.a. It was not disputed by the petitioners regarding their liability and what was in dispute, in fact, was the calculation of the amount and the same issue has been gone into by both the courts below by accepting the claim of the society. 3. The view taken by the courts below cannot be termed as grossly erroneous so as to call for interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)