Bombay High Court
TUKARAM LAXMAN BOCHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR DIVISIONAL JT. REGISTRAR, TAL AND DIST NASHIK AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The bank is not estopped; the petitioner remains liable for the excess amount and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner obtained a loan in 2002 from Nashik District Industrial and Mercantile Co‑Operative Bank Ltd. for a tractor and trolley, defaulted, and the bank attached the assets in 2005. Under the 2007 debt‑waiver scheme, the loan was declared waived and a no‑objection certificate was issued in 2012 stating no amount was due. In 2025 the bank claimed that an audit revealed an excess credit of Rs 3,91,164 (part of a larger excess of Rs 52,29,218) which it had refunded to the RBI and now sought recovery from the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the bank was estopped from recovering any amount after issuing the no‑objection certificate. The court held that the issuance of the certificate did not bar the bank from recovering the excess amount not covered by the waiver and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the bank is estopped from recovering an excess amount after issuing a no‑objection certificate under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.
- Whether the borrower remains liable for an amount erroneously credited and later refunded by the bank.
Subjects
- debt waiver
- estoppel
- bank loan recovery
- no‑objection certificate
- audit
- excess credit
- agricultural loan
Judgment
1/4 23 WP-15815-25.odt
Salgaonkar
MANDIRA MILIND
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SALGAONKAR Date: 2026.09.22 16:09:21
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15815 OF 2025
Tukaram Laxman Bochare .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
…
Mr.Siddharth Ghodke i/b Mr.Narayan G. Rokade for the
Petitioner.
Mr.N.C.Walimbe, Addl.G.P. with Mr.M.M.Pable, A.G.P. for the
State/Respondent.
Mr.Rameshwar Gite for the Respondent No.3.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
...
P.C:-
1. The Petitioner, who borrowed loan from Nashik District,
Industrial and Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. i.e.
Respondent No.3 for purchase of tractor and trolley, failed to
repay the same in time.
The loan being sanctioned in the year 2002, in 2005 the
bank official of Niphad branch attached tractor and trolley, but
the Petitioner was unable to repay the loan due to huge
financial difficulties.
In the year 2007, the Central Government declared debt
waiver scheme and the benefit was extended to the loan
2/4 23 WP-15815-25.odt
account of the Petitioner’s father, late Laxman Bochare and
though this amount was deposited in the account of the Bank,
the tractor and trolley were not returned.
2. The Petitioner’s insistence is on the communication
addressed by Respondent No.3 to the Talathi, Deogaon
informing that the loan in the name of the Petitioner’s father
has been waived and the charge of Respondent No.3-Bank on
the agricultural land be removed. A no-objection was also
issued on 04/07/2012 by the Bank, certifying that no amount
is due and payable against the said loan account.
3. The Petitioner is, however, aggrieved by the
communication dated 31/01/2025 asking him to deposit an
amount of Rs.3,91,164/- alongwith interest as he is informed
that though the loan amount of Rs.8,33,164/- was sanctioned
and under the loan waiver scheme, 100% of the loan amount
came into the account of the Bank, but when an audit was
conducted as per clause 11 of the scheme, it is revealed that an
amount of Rs.3,91,164/- credited in the account for clearing
the loan was in excess and, therefore, the said amount was
refunded by the Respondent No.3-Bank to the Reserve Bank of
India and this amount becomes due to be recovered from the
Petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would press into
service the principle of estoppel and, according to him, once
the Bank has issued the no-objection certificate, it has no
authority to recover the said amount from the Petitioner.
3/4 23 WP-15815-25.odt
The counsel for the Respondent No.3-Bank, however,
would rely upon its affidavit, and do not dispute that the no-
objection certificate was issued to the Petitioner alongwith an
intimation to Talathi, Devgaon, Taluka Niphad to remove the
charge as under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief
Scheme, 2008, the Bank submitted the outstanding dues of
Rs.8,33,164/- of the Petitioner to the Government. The said
amount was remitted under the scheme and, therefore, the
Bank issued the no-objection certificate. However, it is
clarified in the affidavit that pursuant to an audit being
conducted on 08/06/2014, it was revealed that an amount of
Rs.3,91,164/- was the excess amount, which was credited to
the Petitioner’s account and in fact, the audit also revealed
that a huge sum of Rs.52,29,218/- was credited in excess and
as far as Respondent No.3-Bank is concerned, it refunded the
whole amount of Rs.52,29,218/- to the Reserve Bank of India
and in fact also paid the interest.
5. It is in the wake of the aforesaid, Respondent No.3-Bank
has adopted a stand that the amount is due to be recovered
from the Petitioner and we do not find any merit in the
contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Bank is now estopped from recovering the said amount. As we
find that the Petitioner had borrowed the loan amount from
Respondent No.3-Bank, in the waiver scheme if the whole
amount is not waived of, whatever remains the balance is
liable to be recovered from the Petitioner. We are conscious of
the financial issues that have been pleaded, but the Bank is to
do business and it is on the basis of the interest alongwith the
4/4 23 WP-15815-25.odt
refund of the loan amount which it receives, it is able to
continue with its banking activity.
In the wake of the aforesaid, since we do not find any
merit in the contention raised by the Petitioner, we dismiss the
Writ Petition.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.