( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12824 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6612 OF 2009 Nrushingh s/o Rama Kusalkar and another. APPLICANTS VERSUS Prakash s/o Amrutlal Changediya and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for the applicants. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for respondent No. 1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th January, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The application is filed by the respondents No. 10 and 14 for vacating the interim stay order granted in favour of the petitioners (in writ petition) by this Court. 3. An inquiry was held under section 88 of the ( 2 ) Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 against all directors of the Credit Society called “Mahavir Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sonai” The directors were held liable to pay the amounts which were estimated as loss caused by them or the amounts for which they were otherwise liable. A certificate under section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was issued on 29-09-2008. The respondent No. 1 of this application i.e. original petitioner was held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,99,10,043/-. It appears that after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Cooperative Credit Society and others, the interim stay was granted. 4. Mr. Sapkal would submit that the interim stay was obtained by suppressing material facts, particularly in respect of the recovery proceedings and liability of the petitioner which had been fixed as a result of order under section 83 (3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. He would point out that the execution proceedings are going on before the Civil Court and the petitioner was well aware of the attachment order ( 3 ) rendered by the Civil Court. He submits that the fall- out of such recovery proceedings has been suppressed in the petition and there is no whisper as regards the present status of the recovery proceedings. It is contended, therefore, that the interim stay granted by this Court on 06-10-2009 deserves reconsideration and same may be vacated. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the relevant aspects, what emerges is that the present applicants cannot be regarded as aggrieved persons, prima facie, on account of the interim stay in as much as they are also the directors likewise the petitioner and they were sailing in same boat when the inquiry under section 88 was carried out. What appears prima facie is that the petitioner is held responsible for the entire loss caused to the Credit Society and, therefore, is held liable to pay the amount of Rs. one crore and odd whereas other directors were held liable to pay small amounts. The counsel for the Cooperative Credit Society was heard while granting interim stay by this Court. ( 4 ) Therefore, the applicants cannot have any objection unless it is brought on surface of the record that they were put to any loss or the stay order is detrimental to their rights as directors. Considering these aspects, the application to vacate the interim stay order is rejected. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/ca12824-09