1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.3254 OF 2009 1. The Administrator, The Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Osmanabad. 2. The General Manager, The Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Osmanabad. 3. The Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Osmanabad, Br.Omerga, Tq. Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. 4. The Osmanabad District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Osmanabad, Br.Yenegur, Tq. Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. APPELLANTS VERSUS Shrimat S/o Ramrao Kage, Age : 58 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o Kasar Ashta, Tq. Lohara, Dist.Osmanabad. RESPONDENT .... Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for appellants Mr.N. V. Gaware, Advocate for respondents .... (CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J) DATE :5th January, 2010. ------------------------------ ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri.K.J.Ghute Patil, the learned Counsel 2 appearing for the Bank extensively and Mr.N. V. Gaware, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/orig. plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff was not employee of the bank. He had obtained financial benefits from a credit co- operative society whereby the liabilities were fixed, for recovery of which, the said credit co-operative society has taken recourse of proceedings by way of certification in terms of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The appellant (orig. defendant) deducted the pensionery benefits of the original plaintiff Shrimant under the garb that since it was the Apex Body of the lending co-operative society, it had authority to deduct pensionary benefit of plaintiff. The plaintiff sought shelter by filing the suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.12/2005 and the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, by an order dated 30th June, 2009, decreed the suit with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principal amount. 3. Taking into consideration the above factual 3 matrix, it is more than clear that the deductions effected by the appellant Bank were without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. That apart, the deductions in respect of the loans availed by the major son and the wife of the plaintiff could not be legally done by the Bank. The wife and son had their independent character. There was no lien created by the plaintiff in favour of the bank authorising the Bank to deduct the amount, for defaults committed by either his son or wife. It is more than clear that there is no direct relation between the bank and the plaintiff in relations to the outstanding amount, entitling the bank to deduct the same from the pensionery benefits. There is no error committed by the learned trial Judge in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal dismissed, no costs. The civil application no.13662/2009 is disposed of. (K. U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE gas/fa3254.09