IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8089 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8089 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8089 OF 2008 Sadashiv Dinkar Patil & another. ... Petitioners. V/s. Youth Development Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kolhapur and others. ... Respondents. Datta H. Pawar for the petitioners. Amit B. Borkar for respondent No.1. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 20th January 2009. DATED: 20th January 2009. DATED: 20th January 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28th August, 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur. 3. The factual matrix reveals that there was a sale arrangement between the petitioner and one Mr.Krishna Narsingh Jogdande, legal heir of deceased Smt.Yashoda Narsing Jogdande. Under this arrangement, the petitioner was to purchase one vehicle (Jeep) from Mr.Jogdande who was borrower of respondent No.1- Bank. This agreement of sale between the petitioner and Mr.Jogdande was placed before the Bank for finance. The bank appears to have financed amount of loan to the petitioner and adjusted the said amount of loan by crediting it to the account of Mr.Jogdande. That is how liability of Mr.Jogdande towards the Bank was satisfied and liability on the petitioner was created. The petitioner is a party to this arrangement. He has voluntarily entered into the agreement to purchase vehicle from Mr.Jogdande and voluntarily borrowed money from the Bank with open eyes. The petitioner, thereafter, did not take steps to get the vehicle transferred in his name. 4. It appears that the vehicle continued to be in the name of original owner Smt.Yashoda Jogdande. It further appears that the said vehicle was sold by R.T.O. for recovery of arrears of road taxes. The petitioner was asked to pay the amount of loan by the Bank which the petitioner failed which, ultimately, resulted in initiating proceeding under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("MSCS" Act). In the said proceeding, the petitioner raised the very same contention canvassed before this Court that he is not liable to pay the dues of the Bank as the vehicle was not transferred in his name. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies - 3 - rejected the application of the Bank holding that complicated issues are involved. This matter was carried to the Joint Divisional Registrar, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur by way of revision application under section 154 of the MSCS Act, who allowed the said revision application holding as under: " Heard Ld.Advocate Shri L.S.Shah for applicant Bank. . I have gone through the contents of the application, written arguments submitted by opponent No.1 and 3 and documents before me, it is crystal clear that the opponent No.1 has obtained loan of Rs.1.75 lacs for which opponent No.2 and 3 and one Shri Kumbhar stood guarantors. The said loan was defaulted and bank initiated recovery proceeding u/s 101 before opponent No.4. The applicant bank lead documentary evidence on affidavit for its claim. Actually the applicant bank is not concerned with the Vehicle transactions between Smt.Jogdande and opponent No.1. In the recovery proceeding u/s 101 there is no bar to decide such type of case. Only on the loan documents and disbursement of loan amount, accounts abstract needs to be considering as per the rule 86. There is no question of complicated issue as raised by the opponent no.1 to 3. In case of there is dispute in respect of vehicle they are at liberty to file the dispute before appropriate forum. But in the instant case the opponent No.4 has to issue recovery certificate for the arrears of dues. In view of this, the order passed by the opponent No.4 is not just and proper. It is further observed that unnecessarily the matter is delayed. The bank money is nothing but the money of public which needs to be recovered. By taking advantage of the technical grounds the debtors are trying to make hurdles in the recovery process. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the arguments of opponent Nos.1 and 3....." - 4 - 5. Having seen the reasons given and having seen the nature of transaction, no case is made out to entertain this petition. The petitioner cannot be allowed to dispute his liability having incurred liability of the Bank by borrowing money after entering into arrangement with Jogdande. The Bank is not at all responsible for non-transfer of vehicle. It was for the petitioner to get the vehicle transferred in his name or to initiate suitable legal action against Mr.Jogdande. 6. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to entertain this petition. Petition is, thus, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)