wp10774.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.10774 OF 2010. Ambernath s/o Phulchand Jadhav. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS Shrinath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.D. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri N.V. Gavare, Advocate for R.No.1. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 6th DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This petition is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 13th May, 2008 passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Kopergaon in Dispute No.518/2005 and the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court at Aurangabad in Appeal No.4/2010 thereby confirming the judgment and award passed by wp10774.10 2 the Co-operative Court, Kopergaon. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was pending before the Co-operative Court, Kopergaon when the Bank Officer stepped in the witness box. Certain questions were put to him on behalf of the petitioner about the mismatch of the entries of loan advanced to the petitioner and entries taken in the Register. The learned Counsel further submitted that on 12th March, 2008, the Senior Advocate who was engaged by the petitioner was required to go abroad and, he returned back on 15th May, 2008. However, on 13th May, 2008 the dispute which was filed by the respondents herein, came to be allowed. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case. The appellate Court has not even discussed about the ground taken by the petitioner that his Advocate had left for abroad and, wp10774.10 3 therefore, there was no proper cross- examination on behalf of the petitioner of the witnesses of Bank - respondents herein. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appellate Court should have at least considered the prayer of the petitioner to remand the matter back to the Co-operative Court, Kopergaon on the ground that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner while passing final judgment and award. He further invited my attention to the issue framed by the appellate Court and submitted that specific point was taken in the appeal memo about not affording proper opportunity by the Co-operative Court to the petitioner. However, the appellate Court has not framed an issue in that respect and even has not discussed anything in the judgment. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, the appellate Court should have remanded the matter back to the Co-operative Court, Kopergaon for hearing afresh. The wp10774.10 4 learned Counsel further submitted that though the Vakalatnama was signed by three Advocates, however, the Advocate who went abroad was specifically engaged by the petitioner to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, other two advocates could not appear and cross-examine the witnesses and take further steps. Therefore, petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondents submitted that three advocates had singed the Vakalatnama and, therefore, though one advocate left country, other two advocates were available for taking further steps in the matter. According to him, the matter relates to financial transactions. The Court has taken correct decision and passed appropriate award. Therefore, he would submit that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order under writ writ jurisdiction. wp10774.10 5 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The appellate Court in para 17 of the judgment has observed thus: “17. While re-appreciating the case of appellant, I find that, five facts are specifically admitted or become deemed for want of denial it is an admitted fact that, the appellant has applied for loan of Rs.6,25,000/- for business purpose on 27.01.2004 and the said loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed to him by the respondent No.1 on 20.03.2004 admittedly respondent No.2 & 3 stood as surety for the said loan. I have perused the loan agreement the copy of loan agreement is provided for counsel of Respondent No.1 as per loan agreement the agreed rate of interest was 16% p.a. and in case of default the borrower has to pay 2% penal interest.” 5. In my opinion, the appellate Court has not only considered the case of the petitioner on other grounds but, has also proceeded on the admitted facts. It is not in dispute that wp10774.10 6 such loan was borrowed by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that agreed rate of interest was 16% p.a. In my opinion, the appellate Court has dealt with the submissions of the parties on merits and has arrived to the correct conclusion. Since the appellate Court has given full opportunity to the petitioner, remand was not necessary. In my opinion, in cases like one in hand, which relates to the financial transactions, the Court should be loath in interfering in such matters. That apart, other two competent advocates were on record, and said fact is not in dispute. 6. In the light of above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and order. Writ Petition stands dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*