The court confirmed that guarantors are liable under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and disputes against them are maintainable despite limitation challenges.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners before this court are the persons who executed security bonds for the loan advanced to respondent No.2 Society by respondent No.1 bank. Respondent No.1 is the District Central Cooperative Bank. Respondent No.2 is the Society under the Cooperative Societies Act. Respondent No.3 is also one of the guarantors who has filed writ petition No.5117/2020. The present petitioners are respondent No.3 to 11 in the writ petition No.5117/2020 filed by the respondent No.3. Since both the petitions are filed challenging the same judgment and order passed by the learned Cooperative appellate court. [Respondent No.1 hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’ and Respondent No.2 hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’ for the purpose of convenience.]

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24-09-2021 passed in Appeal No. 42/2019 and Appeal No. 53/2019. The appeal No. 42/2019 was filed by the petitioners in WP/13219/2019 whereas the appeal No. 53/2019 was filed by petitioner in WP/5117/2020.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are as below.

5. That the petitioners executed the Guarantee bonds (Hamipatra) for loan sanctioned to respondent No.2- Cooperative Credit Society. The loan was obtained as term loan. Respondent No.1 sanctioned the loan and took Guarantee bonds from the petitioners. Said bonds were executed on different dates. As the society did not repay the loan, the bank filed original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal only against the society on 20-12-2004. After prosecuting for some time, the bank withdrew the proceedings of original application on 26-02-2008 finding that original application is not maintainable in respect of the Cooperative Bank before the DRT.

6. After withdrawing the original application the bank filed dispute before the Cooperative Court, Jalgaon bearing dispute No. 249/2010 for recovery of loan amount of Rs.17,58,03,383/-. This dispute was filed only against the society. It is thereafter, the bank filed an amendment application Exh.9 and sought permission to add petitioners as party opponents. The relief also came to be claimed against the petitioners on the strength of Guarantee bonds. Though the application was opposed on various grounds, mainly, that the amendment is time barred, the learned Cooperative Court, Jalgaon allowed the amendment application by order dated 31-10-2013.

7. The petitioners challenged the order of amendment by filing revision. The Cooperative Appellate Court dismissed the revision observing that the court at that stage need not go into the merits of the matter. The petitioners thereafter filed writ petition No.7304/2014 before this court. This court confirmed the orders by keeping the point of limitation open by its order dated 01-09-2014. The petitioners filed an application Exh.15 in the Cooperative Court praying for framing point of limitation as preliminary issue and to decide the same before proceeding on merits. This application was on the ground that even if the Guarantee bonds are taken as it is, the period of limitation claiming recovery on the basis of said Guarantee bonds would be only three years whereas petitioners are added as party for the first time in 2012. The said point was framed as preliminary point. The bank challenged this order by filing revision No.19/2017. On dismissal by the appellate court, a writ petition was filed bearing No. 11081/2017. This court disposed off the writ petition directing the lower court to decide all the issues together. The trial court, therefore, proceeded to decide all the issues together.

8. After holding trial, the learned Cooperative Court allowed the dispute holding the petitioners and respondent No.2 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. The petitioners, therefore filed the appeals in the appellate court. The appellate court dismissed the appeals and thus the petitioners are before this court.

9