Quick Summary:
A court case involving banks in Kolhapur and Pune will be heard at the Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court. This decision was made by Judge Amit Borkar on December 9, 2025, following new rules about where cases should be heard based on where they started.
The Dispute's Roots in Kolhapur
The case began with Shri Shivneri Sahakari Bank Ltd. in Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur, which later merged with Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank. The issue involved Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd., based in Pune, and Shree Swaroop Sying Pvt. Ltd. in Ichalkaranji. The disagreement was about a letter of credit issued at the Kolhapur branch.
Initial Court Decisions
The Cooperative Court in Kolhapur dismissed the original case in 2006. However, the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court in Pune overturned this decision on February 10, 2022.
Petitioner's Standpoint
The petitioner argued that the case should be heard in Bombay, not Kolhapur, because the appeal decision was made in Pune. They emphasized that the appeal decision should determine where the case is heard.
Respondent's Counter
The respondents, represented by Mr. Nitin Deshpande, argued that since all key events happened in Kolhapur, the case should be heard there. They pointed to Rule 3A, which says that cases from Kolhapur should be heard by a local judge.
Understanding Rule 3A
Judge Amit Borkar explained that Rule 3A states that cases from Kolhapur should be handled by the Kolhapur bench. This rule was part of changes made in August 2025 to make case handling more efficient based on where they started.
The Doctrine of Merger
The court clarified that the doctrine of merger is about final decisions in appeals, not about deciding where hearings should take place. So, the original location of the dispute remains important.
The court decided that the case must be heard in Kolhapur, following Rule 3A. The petition, initially filed in Bombay, will be transferred to the Kolhapur bench. This decision ensures that cases are heard where they originated, improving the efficiency of the court process.
Acknowledgements
Judge Borkar thanked the lawyers, Mr. A.R. Gole and Mr. N.P. Deshpande, for their thorough and well-researched arguments, which helped in reaching a fair decision.
