ssm sm sm 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 WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5814 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5814 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5814 OF 2008 Sandeep Sayajirao Jagdale ...Petitioner Vs. Maratha Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd.& Ors..Respondents. Mr.Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 7th August, 2008 : 7th August, 2008 : 7th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Mr.Bodke, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr.Kakade, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. The Petitioner challenges the validity, legality and propriety of Section 101 certificate granted against him and in favour of Respondent No.1, by Respondent No.5, Assistant Registrar, as confirmed by the Revisional authority namely Divisional Joint Registrar, Respondent No.6. 3. The Petitioner submits that he had obtained loan from Maratha Sahakari Bank and therefore, Section 101 proceedings at the instance of Respondent No.1, a Credit Society is not maintainable. He further submits that the rate of interest which is being charged by the Respondent No.1 is much higher than the agreed rate of interest by ( 2 ) erstwhile Maratha Sahakari Bank. Both the submissions are without any merits. So far as the first submission is concerned, Maratha Sahakari Bank was converted in Respondent No.1 Credit Society i.e. Maratha Sahakari Co-operative Credit Society. This conversion was effected in the year 2002. The Petitioner never challenged this conversion. In above said conversion the assets, liabilities, rights and responsibilities and erstwhile Maratha Co-operative Sahakari Bank are transferred to Respondent No.1. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in petitioners contention in this regard. The next contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 has charged higher rate of interest is also devoid of any substance. The Petition does not discloses any material to substantiate this contention. On the contrary, the findings recorded at page 69 of the Petition, reveals that the rate of interest is charged as agreed by the petitioner. 4. In the facts and circumstance mentioned above, no ground is made out so as to enable me to interfere in a Writ Petition in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( 3 ) ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)