:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1581 OF 2008 Pranav Prasanna Warange Minors through their Natural Guardian as Mother Sou. Yogita Prasanna Warange ...Petitioners Versus The Ajra Urban Co-op Bank Ltd and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.Suresh N.Bhosale, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.P.D.Dalvi, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Mentioned. Not on board. 2. The petitioner applies for status-quo till the Writ petition is placed for admission. 3. The orders under challenge are passed on an Application for interim injunction in a Civil Suit being Reg.Civil Suit No.33 of 2007. The case set up is :2: :2: :2: that, the Original Plaintiffs are minors and the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor through their next friend, Yogita and Gayatri. The Plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are the sons of Defendant no.5. Plaintiff no.3 is the daughter of Defendant no.6. Defendant no.4 is the wife of Defendant no.3 Defendant nos.5 and 6 are the sons of Defendants nos.3 and 4. They are residing as a joint family. They are partners of a registered firm, Shradha Developers. The properties are according to them ancestral properties and there is no partition or separate share regarding the suit properties, insofar as, Plaintiffs and Defendant nos.3 to 6. During the course of the business, it appears that the loans were obtained by the partnership firm from the Co-operative bank which is also impleaded as party to the Writ petition being Respondent nos.1 and 2. There was a default and therefore they resorted to the Secrutisation Act. The Notice was issued and thereafter proceedings were instituted. The courts below have accepted the case of the bank that the liability is more than Rs.1 crore as on 31.7.2007. There is a security in the form of the suit properties. The Bank has resorted to Secrutisation Act and civil :3: :3: :3: court will have no jurisdiction. The Defendant nos.3 to 7 to the Suits have challenged the Recovery proceedings by filing disputes in the Co-operative Court, Kolhapur and applied for interim reliefs therein, but, those Applications were rejected. The Appeals therefrom have also been rejected. The Writ Petition was filed against that order before this court which was also disposed off. After disposal of this Writ Petition, the plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 have filed collusive suits to defeat the claim of the Bank and not approached the Court with clean hands. On all three counts, namely, prima-facie case, Balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have concurred. The reasoning in the lower Appellate Courts’ order, in paras 9 to 11, speaks volume about the attempt made to defeat the claim of the Bank. The Courts below were right in holding that the Minors are now put forward by the very persons who had applied for loans or guaranting repayment of the dues of the Bank. Such attempts have been rightly termed as abuse of the process of law. :4: :4: :4: 4. There is no reason to interfere with these concurrent findings based as they are on the materials produced before the courts below. They are not vitiated by any error apparent nor can be termed as perverse. Petition dismissed. No costs. 5. The petitiioners’ Advocate states that the Firm and the partners are making an attempt to introduce some third party who will take over the liability and repay the dues of the Bank. For that purpose, he prays that even though the properties are attached, they may not be sold. Mr.Dalvi, appearing for the bank states that no amount has been paid till date. To enable the parties to place before the Bank a proposal and if possible by involving a third party, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken by Respondent nos.1 and 2 for a period of 4 weeks from today. *******