1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1532 OF 2009 Mrs. Shubhangi w/o Suhas Wani ...Petitioner Versus The Recovery Officer/ Administrative President, Indira Co-operative bank Ltd. Dhule and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3 Mr. A.G. Talhar, advocate for respondent No.5 ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 8TH MARCH, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already identified purchaser of the mortgaged property, which is required to be sold to realize the outstanding dues of the petitioner. The aggregate consideration for the said property has been arrived at Rs.13,63,500/-. The purchaser has offered that amount by way of cheque dated 2 11.2.2009, at page 53 of the paper book. However, the Bank is not honouring the said cheque and is insisting for deposit of that amount either in cash or by cheque drawn on some other Bank and not from the account of the respondent Bank itself. The cheque issued by the Purchaser is from account No.421 in Indira Sahakari Bank, Dhule in favour of the petitioner’s husband but the Bank has declined to accept the said cheque, as it is from the account of same Bank, due to restrictions imposed on the respondent Bank by the Reserve Bank of India in its communication dated 16.2.2009. The purport of the said restriction is that any banking transaction, effected by the respondent Bank, should not result in acceptance/repayment of deposits. The cheque issued by the purchaser in favour of the petitioner’s husband obviously would be indirect way of repayment of the deposit of the said purchaser lying in the same respondent Bank, which indeed would be in violation of the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India. 3 We therefore, find no substance in this petition and the grievance, which has been brought before us. No fault can be found with the stand taken by the respondent Bank in not accepting the cheque issued by the purchaser in favour of the petitioner’s husband dated 11.2.2009 and instead call upon the petitioner to arrange for payment either by cash or from some other Bank account of the purchaser. In the circumstances, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. 3 4 At the same time, it is placed on record that the respondent Bank has no objection for completing the sale transaction as suggested by the petitioner provided the petitioner ensures that proposed purchaser would deposit consideration amount which would be acceptable to the Bank, either in cash or by way of banker’s cheque issued by some other Bank in favour of the petitioner’s husband or directly in the name of the respondent Bank. In other words, the petitioner will have to match the offer available with the Bank at the relevant time and cannot insist for sale of property only on the basis of subject private arrangement. It is clarified that all options and remedies available to either side in relation to the recovery of outstanding dues from the petitioner will have to proceed on its own merits in accordance with law. 5 Petition is dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) rlj/