3^ HLOH^OJLWT.O£_JUJ?JCATU_RECilKAJTiSGARhL^^^ SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRt S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRIT PETITION N0. 581 OF 2006 1. K.S.K. Naidu, aged aboutSOyrs. ;/o. Late M.R. Naidu Versus Construction Committee Kurud- Bhitai - Durg, C/o, G. Mani R/o Plot no. 7 Bhiiai Tahsil & District Durg (M.P.) Now (C.G.) G. Mani, S/o Gopal, aged about 50 years Occupation - Service in BSP R/o Priyadarshini House Construction Committee Kurud P!ot no. 7 Bhiiai Tahsil District Durg (M.P.) now (C.G.) larshini House Constructi -operative Committee Ltd. Kurud-Bhi'ai, District Durg Present: Shri •Sudhi'r Verma, learned counse! for the petitioners. >r(t on The first petitioner who is a member of respoodent Priyadarshini House Construction Co-operative Committee Ltd., Kurud-Bhilai, Distt. Durg, in the month of June 1987, borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the respondent-society for construction of a house. He committed default in repayment of the loan as per the schedule. Hence, the Regiona! Qfficer of the respondent-society as per Annexure P/8 notice dated 29,07.2003 has cailed upon the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 3,68,044/- towards principa! amount and accrued interest tiil the 5 -2-- date of notice. Being aggrieved by the above notice, this writ petitlon is fiied. (2) The onfy contention urged before me while assaiHng the impugned notice by Searned counse! for the petitioner is that the respondent-society under no circumstance claim more than the double of the amount advanced by it as !oan to the petitioner. !n other words, according to the learned counse! for the petitioner, irrespective of interest accrued on the principai amount al! these years, respondent- society is entitted to claim and recover a sum of Rs.1,20.000/- only being the double of the p.rincipa! amount originalty advanced to the petitioner as ioan. In support of this submission, the learned counsel was not in a position to place any authority or statute or byiaws of respondent-society except the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mhadagonda Ramgonda Patj! and others Vs. Shripai Sahvant Rainade and others . if i may say so, iearned counsel without any sembiance of relevancy and out of contest has cited the above judgment of the Apex Court. There js no need for me to refer to that judgment at a!!. The above judgment of the Apex Court has no bearing on the decision-making in this case. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that irrespective of the defaults committed and the iength of is entitled to recover only double of Such a hypothesis does not stand to sf.j rationality. The writ petition is, dsrault period, the tender of the amounfof the ioan advanced any reason or rhyme and bere' therefore, dfemissed. No costs. Sdf- Chief Justice ,AIR19B8S.C.-12( ^ '~^