1/4 23 WP-15815-25.odt Salgaonkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 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 MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR Digitally signed by MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR Date: 2026.09.22 16:09:21 +0530 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. 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.)