FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO.3618 OF 1992. WRIT PETITION NO.3618 OF 1992. WRIT PETITION NO.3618 OF 1992. Vasant Jalsinchan Yojana Nagathane ..Petitioner. Vs. Maruti Nivrutti Mulik and Anr .. Respondents. Mr S. R. Page, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Prashant Naik for Respondent No.2.(Not present.) Mr Ashok J. Chougule for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 05.09.2008. DATED: 05.09.2008. DATED: 05.09.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. On the motion made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is allowed to delete reference to Article 226 of the Constitution of India made in cause title of the petition. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused petition. ( 2 ) FACTS:- FACTS:- FACTS:- ----- ----- ----- 3. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 passed in Appeal No. 426 of 1990, Co-operative Court, Mumbai confirming the order and the judgment of the Co-operative Court No.1, Sangli in ABN No.21 of 1985 dated 13.9.1990, whereby the present petitioner has been ordered to pay to the respondent No.1 ("the disputant" for short) Rs. 32,550-79 ps with future interest @ 10 % per annum on the amount of Rs. 24,900/- from 11.2.1985 till realization thereof. 4. It is not in dispute that the disputant Maruti borrowed loan against mortgage of his agricultural land from Respondent No.2 ("the Bank" for short). Under the authority of the disputant the amount of loan in the sum of Rs. 14,300/- was paid by the Bank to the present petitioner, who is engaged in for formulating water supply schemes. Since the disputant was to purchase agricultural land and desired to have water supply to his field under the water supply scheme to be executed by the present petitioner so as to enable him to irrigate ( 3 ) his agricultural land made payment of Rs. 14,300/-. 5. It appears that the disputant could not purchase agricultural land which he intended to purchase. The land owned by him, which was mortgaged by disputant to secure the amount of loan, was located 3 k.m. away from the water supply scheme as such due to long distance location of the said agricultural land water supply to the said landed property was not feasible. In short, the disputant did not get advantage of water supply scheme for which the amount of loan was diverted by him to the present petitioner. Since the amount paid was lying with the petitioner, demand was made to it to refund Rs. 14,300/- with interest thereon. Inspite of demand, the petitioner did not refund that amount. Consequently, the disputant filed dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("the Act" for short), claiming Rs. 14,300/- with interest thereon amounting to Rs. 24,900/-. The said dispute was tried and allowed by the judgment and order dated 13.9.1999 by the Co-operative Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the ( 4 ) appeal was preferred by the petitioner contending that it was liable to pay the amount received by it i.e. Rs 14,300/- but not the interest thereon for want of any contract in that behalf. The appellate Court did not find favour with the submission made. The appeal was, thus, dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.4.1992 by the Appellate Court, Mumbai. 7. Being aggrieved by the above appellate order, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. SUBMISSIONS: SUBMISSIONS: SUBMISSIONS: ----------- ----------- ----------- 8. Mr Page, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the loan borrowed by the disputant from the bank was liable to be repaid with agreed interest thereon but that does not mean that liability of interest was the part of the liability of the petitioner. The loan was borrowed by the disputant for his own convenience. He further submits that the petitioner was and is prepared to return the ( 5 ) original amount of Rs. 14,300/- received by it but without any interest. 9. Mr Page, learned counsel for the petitioner, alternatively, submits that if at all, interest is to be charged, then that can only be charged from the date of demand for refund and not from the date of payment. He, thus, submits that the impugned order is either liable to be set aside or at any rate it is liable to be modified. 10. Per contra, Mr Chougule, learned counsel for the disputant tried to support the impugned order contending that the amount of interest was paid by the disputant to the bank on the amount of loan borrowed by him amounting to Rs. 14,300/-, as such, the petitioner is bound to compensate the disputant. He, thus, submits that no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nobody is present on behalf of the bank. CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: ------------- ------------- ------------- 11. Having heard both the parties, alternative ( 6 ) submission canvassed by Mr Page needs consideration. It is admitted fact that an amount of Rs. 14,300/- were borrowed by the disputant from respondent No.2 bank. It is not in dispute that Rs. 14,300/- were paid by the bank to the petitioner for and on behalf of the disputant. If the disputant did not get advantage of water supply scheme for which Rs. 14,300/- were paid, then in that event the disputant was very much entitled to claim refund of Rs. 14,300/-. Accordingly, demand was made. It was, thus, obligatory on the part of the petitioner to refund amount of Rs. 14,300/- as, admittedly, the disputant did not get any advantage of the water supply scheme. 12. It is needless to mention that whatever amount of interest was paid by the disputant to the bank cannot be recovered or allowed to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is only liable to repay or refund the amount of Rs. 14,300/-, however, with interest thereon from the date of demand since the petitioner failed to refund that amount inspite of specific demand vide notice dated 1.1.1995. ( 7 ) 13. In the above view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be modified and as such the operative part of the award/decree stands modified reading as under. "Respondent No.2 do pay to the disputant Rs. 14,300/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 1.2.1995 till full and final realization with no order as to costs." 14. The petition, accordingly, partly succeeds. Rule is made partly absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)