1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4653 OF 2009 Shri Siddheshwar Sah. Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd., Kumtha, Tal. North Solapur, Solapur. ... Petitioner v/s Shri Arjun Maruti Sontakke ... Respondent Ms.Geeta P. Mulekar for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court i.e. the Co-operative Court as well as the Co-operative Appellate Court. By these orders the petitioner has been directed to pay to the respondent herein an amount of Rs.70,930/- alongwith 19% per annum interest from the date of the dispute till realization. This amount is 2 awarded as damages since the petitioner Karkhana did not harvest the sugarcane crop in time due to which the respondent suffered a loss. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the bye-laws of the Karkhana do not provide that it is incumbent on the petitioner Karkhana to provide assistance to the farmers for harvesting the crop. She points out that it is only when assistance is sought by the farmers that the Karkhana extends its aid. 3. In the present case, there is a finding recorded by both the Courts below that the respondent had sought the assistance from the Karkhana to harvest his sugarcane crop which the Karkhana had extended. However, that aid came too late and, therefore, the respondent suffered a loss. 4. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner was unable to rebut the evidence of the respondent that he had cultivated three acres of land which was also contended by him in his plaint. 5. Writ petition rejected. 3 6. The learned advocate for the petitioner now submits, after this order has been dictated that, the interest should be reduced. In my opinion, unless this issue has been raised, argued and considered by the Appellate Court, I need not go into it. ..... 4