WP.3021-90 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3021 OF 1990 Vasant Kondopant Walimbe & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. A. V. Anturkar, for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner No.1 was working as officer in the Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. (respondent No.1 herein); Petitioner No.2 was the branch manager of respondent No.1 bank, at the relevant time. Respondent No.2 had loan account in the said bank. It appears that the cheques were deposited by respondent No. 2 in the bank which was dishonooured on two occasions. Thereafter a third cheque was deposited by him for the same amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is alleged that taking into consideration the relations of WP.3021-90 - 2 - respondent No.2 with the bank, the said cheque was cleared though there was no amount in his account. A dispute, therefore, was filed by respondent No.1 bank in the Cooperative Court for the said recovery of said amount from respondent No.2 and the present petitioners. In the said dispute, respondent No.2 admitted his liability and agreed to pay the said amount by installments. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the claim against the petitioners and the other employees. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 bank filed an appeal before the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court. The Appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court and directed the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the petitioners, respondent No.2 and other employees with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 6-11-1982, till realization of the entire amount to the Disputant Bank. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Appellate Court, present petition has been filed by the petitioners. It is alleged that since the liability was accepted by respondent No.2, the Appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower WP.3021-90 - 3 - Appellate Court, since the lower Appellate Court has in its operative part of the order has clearly mentioned that the bank should recover the amount first from Opponent No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) and if any amount remains, then from Opponent Nos. 2 to 6. The said order was passed on 7th March, 1990. More than 20 years have elapsed thereafter. The Appellate Court has in fact protected the interest of the petitioners therein by directing the bank to recover the amount from Opponent No.1 first. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]