1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1799 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION 2577 OF 2008 1. Union of India, through the Department ) of Posts, India, Upadakapal/Post Master ) Ankalkhop Post Office, Ankalkhop, ) Taluka: Palus, District Sangli 416 416 ) 2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, ) Sangli Division, Sangli 416 416 ) 3. Superintendent of Post (Pravar Dakpal), ) Sangli Dvision, Sangli-416 416. )..Appellants (org.defendants) Versus Shree Dadasaheb Patil Nagari Sahakari Pat ) Sanstha Maryadit, Ankalkhop, Taluka Palus, ) District Sangli, Through Secretary, ) Shr Prabhakar Mahadev Chougule, adult, ) Occupation : Service. Residig at C/o. ) Shree Dadasaheb Patil Nagari Sahakari ) Patsanstha Maryadit, Ankalkhop,Taluka: ) Palus, District: Sangli. )..Respondent (Org. Plaintiff) Mr. Y.S.Bhate,Advocate a/w N.R.Prajapati, Advocate for the appellant – Union of India.. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 4th August, 2009. 2 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Respondent, which is a Co-operative Credit Society purchased 10 Kisan Vikas Patra of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each from the Post Office at Ankalkhop. The period for maturity of said Vikas Patra was 5 ½ years. On maturity, double of the principal amount was to be paid. On 14.1.2005, the said Kisan Vikas Patras matured and the respondent-Co-op. Society requested the concerned Post Office to make the payment. However, the Post Office took a stand that said Vikas patra could not be sold to a Co-operative Society because as per the Notification dated 8.3.1995, Kisan Vikas Patra could be issued only to individuals and Trusts. In view of this, the Post Office offered to pay back only the principal amount without interest. This was challenged by the respondent by filing Special Civil Suit No.52 of 2006 and claimed the total amount of Rs.2 lakh with future interest. The suit was contested by filing written statement by the present appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit. Hence this appeal by the original defendant. 3. In similar facts and circumstances in Romeo Sam Arambhan vs. Union of India & Ors. 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 56, a Division Bench of this Court 3 after considering certain relevant judgments of the Supreme Court, held that action on the part of the respondents/Union of India in denying that promised amount of National Savings Certificate is highly inequitable and smacks unfairness and lacks good faith. This Court directed the Union of India to pay the promised amount within one month failing which the amount would carry future interest. That Judgment was followed by another Division Bench in W.P.NO.7097 of 2006 (Koregaon Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.). The present case is squarely covered by the above referred two authorities of this Court. In the light of settled legal position, I find no fault in the Judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court. 4. Therefore, the First Appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the C.A. for stay does not survive and stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)