Neeta Sawant 905-WP-6233-2004.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6233 OF 2004 Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner … : Versus : Harishchandra Ramchandra Pimputkar and Ors. . Respondents … Mr. Jaydeep Deo, for the Petitioner. Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C : 1) The limited grievance raised by the Petitioner is about the Divisional Joint Registrar (Revisional Authority) conflating the issues relating to two loans disbursed by the Petitioner-bank to M s. Mahalaxmi / Car Accessories (Rs.2,00,000) and Mr. Harishchandra Pimputkar (Rs.6,00,000). It is Petitioner-bank s case that the loan sanctioned and ’ disbursed to M s. Mahalaxmi Car Accessories has been duly repaid and a / Certificate to that effect was issued by the Bank to the borrower. M s. / Mahalaxmi Car Accessories was the proprietary concern of Mr. Harischandra Pimputkar. The bank had additionally and separately sanctioned a different and distinct credit facility of Rs.6,00,000 - to Mr. / _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 1 of 3 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 905-WP-6233-2004.docx Harishchandra Pimputkar. It is Bank s contention that the borrower- ’ Mr. Harishchandra Pimputkar has defaulted in repayment of the said loan of Rs.6,00,000 -. However, the Revisional Authority has conflated / the two loans and has taken into consideration the No-Dues Certificate issued in respect of the loan of M s. Mahalaxmi Car Accessories of / Rs.2,00,000 - for the purpose of recording discharge in the case of Mr. / Harischandra Pimputkar whose loan of Rs.6,00,000 - still remained / unpaid. Therefore, the bank has requested for remand of the proceedings of Revision Application No. 153 94-95 to the Revisional / Authority for reconsideration of liability to repay the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000 - by Mr. Harishchandra Pimputkar. It appears that the / Petitioner had approached the Divisional Joint Registrar to correct the order dated 4 October 1995 passed in Revision Application No. 153 94- / 95 who by order dated 2 March 2000 rejected the request. 2) It appears that an order of remand was previously made by this Court vide order dated 31 October 2012. However, order passed by this Court on 31 October 2012 was challenged by the contesting Respondents before the Hon ble Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. ’ 1824 of 2015. The order passed by this Court on 31 October 2012 is set aside by the Hon ble Apex Court observing that the contesting ’ Respondents were not heard while passing the said order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is directed to be reheard after grant of opportunity of hearing to the contesting Respondents. 3) Accordingly, after restoration of the petition, notices were issued to the contesting Respondents on 21 February 2020. However, the contesting Respondents have failed to appear before the Court. Hearing of the petition was repeatedly adjourned awaiting appearance on _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 2 of 3 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 905-WP-6233-2004.docx behalf of the contesting Respondents. This Court also directed service of private notices on the contesting Respondents. Despite service of notice, as well as private notices, Respondents have failed to remain present before the Court. 4) In my view, the Bank s contention about No-Dues ’ Certificate in respect of the loan of Rs.2,00,000 - disbursed to M s. / / Mahalaxmi Car Accessories getting confused with the loan of Rs.6,00,000 - disbursed to Mr. Harishchandra Pimputkar deserves to be / examined in detail by the Revisional Authority. For that purpose, the proceedings deserve to the remanded to the Revisional Authority for being decided afresh. Whether loan of Rs.6,00,000 - disbursed to Mr. / Harishchandra Pimputkar is indeed repaid or not needs to be re- examined by the Revisional Authority. The petition accordingly succeeds in part. 5) The orders dated 4 October 1995 passed in Revision Application No. 153 94-95, as well as order dated 2 March 2000 are / accordingly set aside. Revision Application No. 153 94-95 is remanded / to the Joint Registrar for being decided afresh on its own merits. 6) The Petitioner-bank shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 29 September 2026. After issuance of notices to the contesting Respondents, the Revision Application shall be decided afresh by the Revisional Authority on its own merits. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 3 of 3 Thursday, 10 September 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.09.11 10:22:07 +0530