Bombay High Court
SHRI. GIRISH MANOHAR MOKASHIversusTHE DOMBIVLI NAGARI SASHAKARI BANK LTD. THRU ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The prayer for a statement of account is academic and cannot be entertained; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Girish Manohar Mokashi filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of his counterclaim by the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court. The counterclaim sought (i) admission of the counterclaim, (ii) a statement of his loan and current account, and (iii) refund of a demand draft of Rs.1,01,300 with interest. While the main dispute was settled, the demand draft relief was not pursued, and the petitioner now only sought the account statement. The High Court held that the request for a statement of account was academic since the primary relief was abandoned, and therefore declined to interfere with the lower courts' orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prayer for a statement of account in the counterclaim is maintainable when the primary relief of demand draft refund is no longer being pressed
- Whether the High Court should set aside the Co-operative Court's dismissal of the counterclaim
Subjects
- writ petition
- counterclaim
- academic prayer
- statement of account
- demand draft
- interest
- Co-operative Court
- High Court
- dismissal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34297
Megha 22_wp_13729_2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13729 OF 2018
Girish Manohar Mokashi ...Petitioner
V/s.
The Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank
Ltd. ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Kishor Patil with Ms. Smita Mane i/b. Ms. Smita Mane for the
Petitioner.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 18 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) Challenge in the Petition is to the judgment and order dated 7
September 2018 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra State Co-
operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, dismissing the Appeal No.23 of 2018
preferred by the Petitioner against the judgment and order dated 3
January 2018 passed by the learned Judge, Co-operative Court, Thane.
2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner.
Page No.1 of 3
18 August 2026
Megha 22_wp_13729_2018
3) So far as the dispute filed by the Respondent -Bank is concerned,
the claim therein has been settled even qua the Petitioner. However,
Petitioner had filed a counterclaim seeking following prayers:-
"१२" तरी मे. न्यायालयांस प्रतिवादीची विनंती की,
(१) प्रतिवादीचा काउंटर क्लेम दाखल करुन घेण्यात यावा.
(२) प्रतिवादी नं. १चे कर्ज खाते क्र. पी.एम.३० व चालू व चालू खाते क्र. १०४१ ह्याचा
खातेउतारा प्रतिवादीस उपलब्ध करुन देण्याचा वादीस आदेश व्हावा.
(३) प्रतिवादी नं. १ ने वादीकडे जमा केलेला डिमांड ड्राप्ट क्र. ६७४५३३ दि.
११/०६/१९८२ रक्कम रु. १,०१,३००/- ची रक्कम २४% व्याजासह प्रतिवादीस परत
करण्याचा वादीस आदेश व्हावा.
4) Though the main dispute got settled the counterclaim survived
and was required to be decided independently. Accordingly, by judgment
and order dated 3 January 2018, the Co-operative Court has decided the
counterclaim independently and has dismissed the same.
5) So far as the prayer for return of Demand Draft dated 11 June
1982 for amount of Rs.1,01,300/- alongwith interest is concerned, Mr.
Patil, on instructions, submits that the Petitioner is no longer pressing
the same relief. He however, submits that at least second prayer in the
counterclaim for making available statement of account for loan account
and current account ought to have been allowed by the co-operative
Court. He submits that in the entire orders passed by the Co-operative
Court and the Co-operative Appellate Courts, there is absolutely no
consideration to the said prayers made by the Petitioner.
6) Though Mr.Patil is not entirely wrong in accusing co-operative
Court for not deciding second prayer in the counterclaim, said prayer has
Page No.2 of 3
18 August 2026
Megha 22_wp_13729_2018
been rendered academic since the main prayer in the counterclaim is for
refund of amount of Rs.1,01,300/- alongwith interest. Now that the said
prayer is not being pressed, mere supply of statement of account would
not be beneficial to the Petitioner in any manner. He will not be able to
pursue any independent remedy even if he detects any discrepancy in
statement of account. Main dispute is already settled by making some
payment by the Petitioner. His prayer for refund of amount of
Rs.1,01,300/- alongwith interest is concurrently rejected by both the
Courts. In that view of the matter, pressing the prayer for statement of
account is clearly academic. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined
to interfere in the impugned order.
7) Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 18 August 2026
Date: 20/08/2026 11:20:54
Checking your session…