Bombay High Court
The Sahebrao Deshmukh Co Operative Bank ... vs Vijay Hanmantrao Shinde And Ors on 23 April, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Gauri Godse
70.6552.19 wp.docx
Iresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6552 OF 2019
The Sahebrao Deshmukh Cooperative .....Petitioner
Bank Ltd.
Vs.
Vijay Hanmantrao Shinde and Ors .....Respondents
Mr. Vishal Chandrakant Ghosalkar for the petitioner
Mr. Anoop Patil for respondent no. 1
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 23rd APRIL 2024
P.C.
1. Heard. Arguable points are raised. Hence, Rule.
2. Mr. Anoop Patil waives service for respondent no. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. He submits that the objection of jurisdiction was raised before respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that OTS scheme with regard to respondent no. 1/3
70.6552.19 wp.docx 1's application was accepted. However, he failed to make the payment. Hence, the applicability of the scheme lapsed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd.1
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in view of the terms of the OTS scheme, respondent no. 1 is precluded from any benefit under the scheme. He further submits that in such circumstances, in the event of any dispute with regard to implementation of the OTS proposal, there is a remedy to file Dispute under Section 91 of the The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ("MCS Act").
5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that once the OTS scheme was accepted by the petitioner, no fault can be found in the impugned order. According to respondent no. 1, amount accepted under OTS scheme is paid.
6. Perusal of the letter dated 21 st August 2017 indicates that the 1 AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 5517 2/3 70.6552.19 wp.docx bank had intimated respondent no. 1 regarding non payment of amount under the scheme. Hence, benefit under the scheme stood rejected. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that a fresh proposal was also given by the bank for the OTS scheme. However, he is unable to point out whether even as per fresh proposal, entire payment was made.
7. In view of the aforesaid, pendency of this petition and grant of interim relief shall not be any impediment for respondent no. 1 to adopt appropriate remedies by filing Dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act, if permissible under the law.
8. Hence, during the pendency of the petition, there will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).
9. Needless to clarify that in the event any Dispute is filed, if permissible in law, rival contentions of all the parties are kept open.
[GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3 Signed by: Iresh S. Mashal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/04/2024 20:28:31