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. 7811 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7811 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7811 OF 2008 Mr Hariram M. Pasi ..Petitioner. Vs. Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd & Ors ..Respondents. Mr V. K. Nair, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms Merlyn Monteiro, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 14.01.2009. DATED: 14.01.2009. DATED: 14.01.2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2008 passed in Appeal No. 88 of 2007 by the State of Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. After having examined the findings recorded, one has to conclude that the findings are based on evidence. The terms and conditions incorporated in the place of Letter of Guarantee, which the Petitioner has executed are appreciated in its proper perspective. No perversity in the appreciation of evidence could be pointed out by the petitioner. Each and every findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court is based on evidence and the view taken is a reasonable and possible view which can very well be supported on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sita Ram Sita Ram Sita Ram Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors (2008) 5 Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors (2008) 5 Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors (2008) 5 S.C.C. 711. S.C.C. 711. S.C.C. 711. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jose Inacio Jose Inacio Jose Inacio Lourence vs. Syndicate Bank and Anr Company Cases Lourence vs. Syndicate Bank and Anr Company Cases Lourence vs. Syndicate Bank and Anr Company Cases (1989) Vol.65 698 (1989) Vol.65 698 (1989) Vol.65 698 is misplaced. 4. In the result, the Petition is dismissed in limini. No order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)