1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6892 OF 2009 Shri Moula Rasul Tamboli. .. Petitioner Vs Maharashtra Credit Co-operative Society Ltd & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Vinod Jadhav for the Petitioner. Shri Vijay Killedar for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent-Bank filed a dispute against the Petitioner ( borrower ) and the Guarantors for recovery of a loan amount of Rs.50,000/- advanced to the Petitioner along with interest thereon. The claim was contested by the Petitioner. The Co-operative Court passed an award directing the Petitioner/Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.73,421/- with interest thereon at the rate of 21% per annum on the principal amount with effect from 1st December, 2005 till realization. Facility of payment of installments was also granted. The 1st Respondent was directed to adjust the fixed deposit amount along with interest accrued thereon upto date towards satisfaction of the decretal amount. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner before the Co-operative Court. There was a cross objection filed by the 1st 2 Respondent for grant of interest from 1st April, 2004. By the impugned judgment and award, the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed and by allowing the cross objection, the award was modified directing payment of interest from 1st April, 2004 which is the date on which the dispute under Section 91 of the said Act was filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the cross-examination of the officer of the 1st Respondent shows that the compound interest has been charged contrary to the Agreement between the parties. The second contention is that the fixed deposit of the Petitioner with interest thereon ought to have been appropriated towards the amount due and payable under the Loan Account. The third contention of the Petitioner is that the principle of dam duppat will apply. 3. As far as the first contention is concerned, in the written statement, it is not the case made out by the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent was not entitled to apply compound interest. In absence of any such contention raised in the written statement, now the Petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate the said contention. As far as the second contention is concerned, there is nothing placed on record to show that the 1st Respondent was under an obligation to appropriate the fixed deposit amount towards the repayment of loan. Under the award of the Co- operative Court, the said direction was given to the 1st Respondent but the said award was subjected to challenge by the Petitioner. As far as the third 3 contention is concerned, it appears that the same was not at all raised before the Appellate Court. 4. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Petition and the same is rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that in terms of the direction of this Court issued on 13th August, 2009, the Petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/-. The office noting confirms the said fact. A part of the said amount appears to have been invested. The 1st Respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, subject to condition that the amount shall be appropriated towards discharge of the liability of the Petitioner under the impugned judgment and award. (A.S.OKA, J)