(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 582 of 2009 1. Yashwant s/o. Rangnathrao Vyas, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Shweta Apartment, Tilaknagar, Sawarkar Chouk, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Shashikant s/o. Gangadharrao Sontakke, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. House No. 161, N-12, CIDCO, Aurangabad, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Adarsh Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Aurangabad, through its Manager, 31, Shivjyoti Colony, N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 2. The Special Recovery Officer, Adarsh Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Aurangabad, 31, Shivjyoti Colony, N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 3. Sau. Ranjana w/o. Ravikant Bhagwat, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Rukhmini Apartment, Plot No.5, Vijaynagar, Wadala-Pathardi Road, CIDCO, Nashik - 422 009. (2) 4. Administrative Officer, Marathwada Statutory Development Board, Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad, District : Aurangabad. .................. Mr. Ruheell Naaz, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Deelip Bankar Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. P.B. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate, for respondent no.3. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH JULY 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Since no order prejudicial to the interest of respondent no.4 is being passed, notice upon rule on the said respondent is waived. 3. The present petitioners have challenged the order dated 14th February 2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Taluka Aurangabad, in a recovery proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, for an amount of Rs. 1,10,018/-, to the extent of the petitioners. (3) 4. The petitioners are guarantors of the loan taken by the deceased husband of respondent no.3. The deceased husband of respondent no.3 and the petitioners were working in the same office. It is the contention of the petitioners, that on account of their relations in the office and since husband of the respondent no.3 was their superior, they had stood as guarantors. It is further contention of the petitioners, that though the respondent no.3 has sufficient means to satisfy claim of the Bank, no proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amount. 5. Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3, on 9th July 2009, had made a statement on behalf of respondent no.3, that the said respondent is willing to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards one time settlement of the dues of the respondent Bank and that the entire amount would be paid by 30th September 2009. Taking into consideration peculiar facts of the case and particularly, that the respondent no.3 is a widow, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 Bank was requested to take instructions, as to whether the respondent no.1 is willing to accept the said amount. In response to the same, the respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that taking a sympathetic view, the respondent nos.1 and 2 have accepted the proposal of one time settlement by accepting an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- plus an amount of Rs. 6,000/- which is already with the Bank towards the shares. It is further stated that a post-dated cheque dated 10th September 2009 has already been handed over by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.1 Bank of the said amount. 6. In that view of the matter, I find that interest of justice (4) would be subserved by passing the following order. 7. Petition is partly allowed. (i) The respondent no.3 shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Bank. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.1 Bank on or before 30th September 2009. It is clarified that upon the post-dated cheque dated 10th September 2009 being realized, the claim of the Bank against the respondent no.3 shall stand satisfied on receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and by adjusting the amount of Rs. 6,000/- which is by way of share contribution paid by the husband of respondent no.3. (ii) It is further made clear that in the event, the cheque is not realized by 30th September 2009, the recovery certificate issued against the respondent no.3 and the petitioners, shall stand restored. However, it is made clear that the respondent nos.1 and 2 shall first proceed to recover the amount from the respondent no.3 and only in the event, they are not in a position to satisfy their dues from the property standing in the name of respondent no.3, they would be entitled to proceed with the recovery as per the recovery certificate dated 14th February 2007. 8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE bgp/wp582