1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3381/2009 (The Bhandara Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. Divl. Jt. Registrar Co-op.Societies& oths) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 20, 2009 Heard finally by consent of the parties. Perusal of impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Regisrar, Co-operative Societies, shows that revision filed by present respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. heirs of original guarantor came to be allowed only after noticing that loan of Rs.19 lakhs originally sanctioned against hypothecation of stocks was further increased and additional loan of Rs.26 lakhs was granted in violation of bank rules and procedure. It was, therefore, held that in such changed circumstances, the legal heirs of original guarantor could not have been held responsible for recovery. Learned Advocate Shri S.N. Dandekar for the petitioner-bank has pointed out that total loan sought to be recovered was Rs.45 lakhs i.e. Rs.26 lakhs 2 plus Rs. 19 lakhs, with interest. He states that the documents subsequently executed by the original guarantor on 06/6/2001 reveal that he had accepted the guarantee for loan amount of Rs.45 lakhs. He states that though these documents are on record, the same are not looked into by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Learned Advocate Mrs. S.N.Deshpande appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has argued that the loan originally sanctioned was against hypothecation of stocks and the documents executed by original guarantor is only for said sum. According to her, there are no other documents executed by the said guarantor undertaking liability of Rs.45 lakhs. She further states that original borrower has to recover more than Rs.49 lakhs from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (as earlier known) and hence, petitioner bank has to attach said amount. Learned AGP Mrs. Dangre appearing for respondent No.1 Divl. Joint Registrar has filed reply and she contends that the controversy has been decided by the respondent No.1 in the light of arguments advanced. She states that as the banking norms and procedure were found to be violated, the Divisional Joint Registrar has rightly held that liability cannot reach the guarantor or his legal heirs. 3 Perusal of impugned order reveals that document dated 06/6/2001, executed by the original guarantor, undertaking his responsibility for loan of Rs. 45 lakhs or its legality or impact, has not been considered by the Divl. Joint Registrar. Similarly the contention that an amount of Rs.49 lakhs is due to original borrower against which the bank could have proceeded, is not looked into. Whether the loan originally sanctioned was increased in accordance with law has also not been looked into. I, therefore, find the order unsustainable. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. All rival contentions raised by the parties are kept open for consideration by the said authority. Parties are directed to appear before that authority on 30/11/2009 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. The said authority to make an attempt to decide the revision as early as possible and in any case by 28/2/2010. Rule accordingly. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Steno copy be issued to learned AGP. JUDGE Diwale.