1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5897 OF 2009 Dattatray Kisan More ...Petitioner Vs. Sidhivinayak Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. K.S. Patil i/b. Mr. P.N.Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6 th April 2009 of the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court in Appeal No. 19/2008 allowing the Appeal against the dismissal of the dispute by the Co-operative Court, Nasik in Dispute No.535/1997. 2. The Bank admittedly disbursed the loan of Rs.50,000/-. The loan has been disbursed in the name of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has signed all the 2 relevant documents. The Petitioner has not repaid the loan. The Bank filed a dispute for recovery of Rs.65,583/- as on 1 st April, 1997 which constituted a principal amount of Rs.50,000/- plus interest thereon @ 19% p.a. 3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the loan was actually meant for and availed by the Chairman of the Respondent No.1 Society under whom the Petitioner served. The Chairman has issued a letter in that behalf to the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.1. This also stands to reason, because the Petitioner has relied upon the Bond which was issued in the name of the son of the Chairman and not the Petitioner. Though the relationship between these parties and issue of the Bond thus suggest that the benefit of the money was availed of by the Chairman of Respondent No.1 and not the Petitioner, the loan was actually taken, for whatever reason, by the Petitioner and in his name. The Bank, therefore, can file Recovery Proceedings only against the Petitioner. It is for the Petitioner to recover from the Chairman in view of their private transaction. The impugned order cannot be faulted since it is based upon the documentary evidence of the Bank. 4. Hence the Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above clarification. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)