LPAs 6/11, 7/11 & 25/11 in WPs 7812/10, 7804/10 & 7806/10 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEALS NOS.6/2011, 7/2011 & 25/2011 IN WRIT PETITIONS NOS.7812/2010, 7804/2010 & 7806/2010 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.6/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7812/2010 Dwarkanath s/o Bhausaheb Raut. ...Appellant.. Versus The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pathardi. Dist.Ahmednagar & two others. ..Respondents.. Shri S.D. Kotkar, Advocate h/f Shri C.K. Shinde, Advocate for appellant. Shri R.P. Phatke, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent no.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= LPAs 6/11, 7/11 & 25/11 in WPs 7812/10, 7804/10 & 7806/10 - 2 - LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.7/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7804/2010 Shankar Shridhar Raut. ...Appellant.. Versus The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pathardi. Dist.Ahmednagar and two others. ...Respondents... Shri S.D. Kotkar, Advocate h/f Shri C.K. Shinde, Advocate for appellant. Shri R.P. Phatke, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent no.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.25/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7806/2010 Ratnakar Bhausaheb Raut. ...Appellant.. Versus The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pathardi. Dist.Ahmednagar and two others. ...Respondents... Shri S.D. Kotkar, Advocate, Advocate for appellant. Shri P.P. More, AGP for respondent no.1. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ..... CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE: 31.01.2011 LPAs 6/11, 7/11 & 25/11 in WPs 7812/10, 7804/10 & 7806/10 - 3 - PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] These three appeals are arising from the common judgment and order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing three writ petitions, filed by the borrower and the two guarantors, whereby they had challenged the recovery certificate dated 24.7.2005 issued u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, in favour of respondent no.2 society. We have perused the impugned judgment wherein the learned Single Judge has considered all the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. the appellants in these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants advanced similar submissions in these appeals. 3] It appears that the certificate was issued in 2005, whereas it was challenged by way of writ petitions filed in 2010. The claim of the appellants that they did not borrow the loan and/or they did not sign any documents as guarantors, has been considered by the learned Single Judge and in paragraph 17 of the judgment observed thus: “Though an affidavit in reply dated 29.11.2010 has been filed by respondent no.2 – society stating that they are in possession of all documents which are duly signed by the petitioners viz. Cash credit application, consent given by guarantors, bank statement, the LPAs 6/11, 7/11 & 25/11 in WPs 7812/10, 7804/10 & 7806/10 - 4 - petitioners have not filed any affidavit in rejoinder to the same. Considering the backdrop of the serious allegations levelled by the petitioners that the respondent no.2 – society has prepared false documents and forged signatures, it was expected of them to seek inspection of the said documents and file an affidavit in rejoinder.” 4] In paragraph no.18 of the judgment, the learned Judge further observed that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and were merely trying to take advantage of the unavailability of record in the office of respondent no.1. Against this backdrop, while dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has also observed that the petitioners viz. the appellants can still avail of the alternative remedy u/s 154 of the Act, which inter alia also provides for condonation of delay, if sufficient cause is made out. 5] In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Hence, the appeals are dismissed summarily. Civil Application No.206/2011 in LPA No.6/2011 and Civil Application No. 208/2011 in LPA No.7/2011 do not survive and disposed of as such. (R.M. BORDE, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) ndk/3111115