Bombay High Court

SHRI. ARUN NAMDEO PAWARversusSHRI. G. G. BALSANE AND ORS

Decided: 21 August 2026
Disposal: Rejected

Holding

The petitioner had executed a personal surety bond, so the court found no warrant to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition.

Summary

The petition challenged the 23 April 2015 order of the Divisional Joint Registrar that dismissed Revision Application No. 68 of 2013 and upheld a liquidator's award concerning Balaji Co-operative Bank. The petitioner argued that he, as ex‑Chairman of Jai Dhanlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, could not be personally liable for a loan because he had not executed any personal document. The court examined whether a personal surety bond existed and noted that the earlier order had been set aside for fresh consideration. The respondent‑State produced a surety bond showing the petitioner’s joint‑and‑several liability, signed both in his personal capacity and as chairman. Finding that the petitioner had indeed executed a personal surety bond, the court concluded there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the amount due by Jai Dhanlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit can be recovered personally against the petitioner, an ex‑chairman, in the absence of a personal guarantee.
Whether the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing the revision application should be set aside.

Subjects

surety bond
personal liability
co‑operative bank
liquidator
revision application
writ petition
banking law
corporate governance

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                              908-WP-1855-2021


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1855 OF 2021

Shri. Arun Namdeo Pawar                               ...Petitioner

                      V/s.

Shri. G. G. Balsane and Ors.                         ...Respondents
                                 ________________
Mr. Anilkumar Patil, for Petitioner.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                 ________________


                                           CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                           DATED: 21 AUGUST 2026


P.C.:


1)          The Petition challenges order dated 23 April 2015 passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar, dismissing revision Application No. 68 of 2013
and confirming the Award dated 5 March 2012 passed by the Liquidator,
Board of Balaji Co-operative Bank Limited, Nashik.


2)          I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-
State.


3)          On account of a plea raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the
amount due and payable by Jay Dhanalaxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha

                                    Page No.1 of 3
                                   21 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                                    908-WP-1855-2021


Maryadit cannot be recovered personally against the Petitioner, who was
its ex-Chairman, this Court had inquired with the Respondent-State as to
whether any document is executed by the Petitioner in his personal
capacity concerning the loan availed by the Credit Society. Accordingly,
following order was passed on 27 July 2026:-


                   1)      It is the contention of Mr. Patil, the learned counsel
                   appearing for the Petitioner that amount due and payable by Jai
                   Dhanlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit cannot be
                   recovered personally against the Petitioner, who was its ex-
                   chairman. He submits that the Petitioner has not executed any
                   document in his personal capacity concerning the loan availed by
                   the said Credit Society.

                   2)     However, perusal of earlier order dated 23 April 2015 passed
                   by Divisional Joint Registrar would indicate that specific findings
                   are recorded that the Petitioner had executed promissory note
                   dated 7 December 1996. Order dated 23 April 2015 was set aside by
                   this Court and proceedings were remanded for fresh decision. In the
                   order passed in the remanded proceedings, the board of Liquidator
                   has not recorded any finding about execution of any personal
                   documents by the Petitioner.

                   3)     Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP seeks time to take
                   instructions as to whether any personal documents are executed by
                   the Petitioner for repayment of loan advanced to the Credit Society.

                   4)    List the Petition for further consideration on 17 August
                   2026.


4)          Today Mr. Chipade has placed on record copy of a surety bond.
The same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. The surety
bond indicates that the Petitioner has undertaken joint and several
liability for repayment of the loan amount sanctioned to the credit
Society. The signature of the Petitioner appears at two places. He has
signed in his personal capacity as well as in capacity of Chairman of the
Dhanalaxmi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit. Thus, there is some

                                       Page No.2 of 3
                                      21 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                                   908-WP-1855-2021


evidence to show that the Petitioner has signed document in personal
capacity as well. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant for
interference in the impugned order.


5)          The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.




                                                       [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                      Page No.3 of 3
                                     21 August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…