1 15.wp6477.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6477 OF 2011 Karmveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Krishna Vally Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents Mr. Tejpal Ingale, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent No. 2. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- DECEMBER 20, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Ingale, Advocate for the Petitioner at length and Mr. Patwardhan, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and learned AGP for Respondent No. 2 for some time. It is not in dispute that the RBI had issued statutory directions under section 35 A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 which are not yet withdrawn. The relevant portion of the said direction reads thus: 2 15.wp6477.11 “Accordingly, the Reserve Bank of India, in exercise of the powers vested in it under sub-section (1) of Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (As Applicable to Cooperative Societies ) read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 hereby directs that Krishna Valley Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kupwad, Dist. Sangli as from the close of business on 26 December 2003 shall not, without prior approval in writing from the Reserve Bank of India, grant or renew any loans and advances, make any investments, incur liability including borrowal of funds and acceptance of fresh deposits, disburse or agree to disburse any payment whether in discharge of its liabilities and obligations or otherwise or enter into any compromise or arrangement or sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any of its properties or assets except to the extent and in the manner provided hereunder :” In view of these directions even the Administrator of Respondent No. 1 Bank could not have entered into any arrangement or compromise without obtaining prior sanction of the RBI. In view of this, no fault can be found with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 7/7/2011. 2. Mr. Ingale however, makes a statement on instructions from the Chairman of the Petitioner Society and the instructing Advocate from the Trial Court that the Petitioners do not want to reimplead Opponent Nos. 2 to 13 in the dispute. In view of this, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing following order: 1. Writ Petition is not entertained. 2. The learned Judge of the Cooperative Court at Sangli is directed to 3 15.wp6477.11 hear and dispose of the Cooperative case No. 439 of 2004 on its own merits on or before 30th June, 2012 by giving priority to this dispute. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)