Bombay High Court · 2025-12-09
SHRI SHIVNERI SAHAKARI BANK LTD ICHALKARNJI vs RUPEE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND ANR
- Citation / case number
- WP/2623/2024
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- SHRI SHIVNERI SAHAKARI BANK LTD ICHALKARNJI
- Respondent
- RUPEE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND ANR
Judgment text excerpt
wp2623-2024-J.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 OF 2024 Shri Shivneri Sahakari Bank Ltd., Digitally signed by Ichalkaranji, merged into Dombivli SHABNOOR SHABNOOR AYUB AYUB PATHAN Nagari Sahakari Bank, Branch PATHAN Date: 2025.12.09 13:32:13 Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, +0530 District Kolhapur … Petitioner V/s. 1. Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd., having Head Office at 2062, Sadashiv Peth, Pune AND branch office at Laxmipuri, Kolhapur, District Kolhapur (Through Liquidator) 2. Shree Swaroop Sying Pvt. Ltd., Shree Swaroop Plot No.28, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur 3. Mukund Atmaram Pitre, Age- Adult, Occupation Unknown, 717, Kasba Peth, Pune … Respondents Mr. A.R. Gole for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Deshpande (through V.C.) with Ms. Anjali S. Shinde for respondent No.1. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 1, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 9, 2025 1 wp2623-2024-J.doc JUDGMENT: 1. The issue that requires adjudication is, whether having regard to the statutory framework, the administrative notifications issued by the High Court, and Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the present writ petition under Article 227, which arises from a dispute originating in Kolhapur District, is required to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge at the Kolhapur Bench instead of the Court at the principal seat. 2. The facts relevant to this issue are not in dispute. The Co operative Court No. 1 at Kolhapur dismissed Dispute No. 1539 of 2006. The Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Pune Bench, allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 10 February 2022 and thereby allowed the dispute. The letter of credit which formed the basis of the dispute was opened by Respondent