W.P.No.1135 of 2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1135 of 2008. [Ghanshyam S/o Tukaramji Nithal & another] VS. [The Yavatmal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Yavatmal, thr., thr. Its Branch Manager] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri G. G. Bade, Advocate for the petitioners. Coram: A. H. JOSHUI, J. Dated: 25th March 2008. 1. The petitioners have suffered the award passed by the Judge, Co- operative Court, directing the recovery of amount of Rs.4,90,532/- jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of filing of dispute till realization of the entire amount. 2. This Order has been modified by the Maharashtra State Appellate Court, directing as follows: (a) The simple interest 14% per annum till repayment be charged. W.P.No.1135 of 2008. 2 (b) The credit of Rs.60,000/- received from the Insurance Company on 21/1/2003, be given while calculating the recovery of decreed sum. 3. In the oral submissions, learned Advocate for the petitioners has urged relying upon a banker's cheque dated 21st March 1998 Annexure-2 that when the banker's cheque of Rs.4,15,872.49 paise was issued to Sunder Automobile, how can the Bank say that the loan disbursement was to the tune of Rs.5,34,000/-. 4. Though the argument is advanced, the petitioners have not at any where in the trial Court as well in present petition demonstrated as to how the petitioners are able to come out of the finding of fact recorded in the very first para of the Judgment of the First Appellate Court appearing at page 63 (English translation thereof is at page 69-A to 69-I) regarding the mode and manner of transfer, and W.P.No.1135 of 2008. 3 disbursement. 5. It is apparent that after the amount was credited into the Saving Account of the Borrower, the amounts were paid by drawing different cheques shown therein at the request of the borrower. 6. It is in this background, and on the basis of proved entries, concurrent finding of fact is recorded that the loan amount, which was disbursed, is Rs.5,34,000/-. It is also concurrently held that considering the credits made from time to time, the amount due on the loan account as on 10-7-2002 is Rs.4,90,552/- when the suit was filed in October, 2002. 7. The Appellate Court has also seen that the amount received from the Insurance Company in October, 2002, was liable to be reduced from the suit amount to be recovered on the basis of decree, and the consequential relief has been granted by the First Appellate W.P.No.1135 of 2008. 4 Court. 8. It is not the petitioners' case that any of the credits of repayments made by him have not been recorded in the account. 9. The petitioners are disputing the very figure of disbursements, however, without providing any foundation thereto, the petitioner could have secured production of documents from the Bank, and could have led evidence to support this plea, which is not done. 10. The petitioners are not able to show that the reliance on the entries in the Saving Bank Account of the petitioners, and corresponding debits in the loan account in which the amount was credited, are factually incorrect. 11. Raising the dispute which is vaguely worded alleging that the amount claimed to be due is not due is of no consequence. 12. In these premises, no W.P.No.1135 of 2008. 5 interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE Sbm