ORDER 1. Heard finally with consent of the parties, at admission stage. 2. In all these writ petitions, identical issues are raised, therefore, all these three writ petitions are decided by this common order. 3. By these writ petitions, the common petitioner in all writ petitions seeks quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Cooperative Court, Aurangabad and, the order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai bench at Aurangabad thereby confirming the order passed by the Co-operative Court in appeals. 4. In writ petition no.11061 of 2015 the respondent is the original disputant, who has filed the dispute bearing CCA No.236 of 2012 before the Co-operative Court at Aurangabad by challenging the notice issued by the petitioner u/s 105 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act of 1960') for demand of the outstanding loan amount. The petitioner/bank is facing financial crises since 2008 and huge fraud has been revealed in the Audit report for the year 2007-08. In consequence thereof, auditor has filed the complaint against the board of Directors, employees, and servants of the petitioner/bank. Further, the petitioner/bank has also faced winding up proceeding and the board of director was dismissed on 30.12.2008. Mr. S R Kamble, Auditor was appointed as Administrator of the petitioner/bank. However, petitioner/bank was closed on 22.2.2010 and license of the bank also came to be cancelled. Accordingly, liquidator was appointed. It appears that petitioner/bank has issued a notice to the respondent/original disputant on 30.10.2010 under section 105 of the Act of 1960 for the amount of Rs.40,76,575/- due against the respondent/disputant. Furthermore, petitioner/liquidator has also issued a public notice on 12.03.2012 in the daily newspaper. Respondent had applied to the Registrar and obtained permission to file the dispute against the liquidator and accordingly, respondent herein has filed case no. CCA 236 of 2012 before the Judge of the Co-operative Court, Aurangabad. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court, Aurangabad after hearing both the sides allowed the dispute and thereby declared that the notice issued by the petitioner-bank u/s 105 of the Act of 1960 is illegal and thus quashed and set aside it. CCA 236 of 2012 before the Judge of the Co-operative Court, Aurangabad. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court, Aurangabad after hearing both the sides allowed the dispute and thereby declared that the notice issued by the petitioner-bank u/s 105 of the Act of 1960 is illegal and thus quashed and set aside it. The learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, bench at Aurangabad has also confirmed the order passed by the Co-operative Court in appeal no.50 of 2014 by judgment and order dated 30.6.2015. 5. In writ petition no.9014 of 2017 the respondent is the original disputant, who has filed the dispute bearing No.318 of 2014 before the Co-operative Court, at Latur by challenging the notice issued by the petitioner/bank u/s 105 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act of 1960') for demand of the outstanding loan amount. The petitioner/bank is facing financial crises since 2008 and huge fraud has been revealed in the Audit report for the year 2007-08. In consequence thereof, the auditor has filed the complaint against the board of Directors, employees, and servants of the petitioner/bank. Further, the petitioner/bank has also faced winding up proceeding and the board of director was dismissed on 30.12.2008. Auditor was appointed as Administrator of the petitioner/bank. However, the petitioner/bank was closed on 22.2.2010 and license of the bank also came to be cancelled. Accordingly, liquidator was appointed. It appears that the petitioner/bank has issued a notice to the respondent/original disputant on 07.11.2012 u/s 105 of the Act of 1960 for an amount of Rs.25,10,954/-due against respondent/disputant. Furthermore, the petitioner/liquidator has also issued a public notice in the daily newspaper. The respondent had applied to the Registrar and obtained permission to file the dispute against the liquidator and, accordingly, the respondent herein has filed dispute bearing no.318 of 2014 before the Judge of the Co-operative Court, Latur. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court, Latur, after hearing both the sides allowed the dispute and thereby declared that the notice issued by the petitioner-bank under section 105 of the Act of 1960 is illegal and thus quashed and set aside it. The learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, bench at Aurangabad, has also confirmed the order passed by the Co-operative Court, Latur in appeal no.82 of 2015 by judgment and order dated 5.2.2016. 6. The learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, bench at Aurangabad, has also confirmed the order passed by the Co-operative Court, Latur in appeal no.82 of 2015 by judgment and order dated 5.2.2016. 6. In writ petition no.9307 of 2019 respondent is the original disputant, who has filed the dispute bearing CCB No. 137 of 2014 before the Co-operative Court, at Latur by challenging the notice issued by the petitioner/ bank u/s 105 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act of 1960') for demand of the outstanding loan amount. The petitioner/bank is facing financial crises since 2008 and huge fraud has been revealed in the Audit report for the year 2007-08. In consequence thereof, auditor has filed the complaint against the board of Directors, employees, and servants of the petitioner/bank. Further, petitioner/bank has also faced winding up proceeding and the board of director was dismissed on 30.12.2008. Auditor was appointed as Administrator of the petitioner/bank. However, petitioner/bank was closed on 22.2.2010 and license of the bank also came to be cancelled. Accordingly, liquidator was appointed. It appears that the petitioner/bank has issued a notice to the respondent/original disputant under section 105 of the Act of 1960 for the amount of Rs.2,37,848/- due against the respondent/disputant. Furthermore, the petitioner/liquidator has also issued public notice on 12.03.2012 in the daily newspaper. The respondent had applied to the Registrar and obtained permission to file the dispute against the liquidator and, accordingly, the respondent herein has filed dispute bearing no. 137 of 2014 before the Judge of the Co-operative Court, Latur. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court, Latur after hearing both the sides, allowed the dispute and thereby declared that the notice issued by the petitioner/bank under section 105 of the Act of 1960 is illegal and thus quashed and set aside it. The learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, bench at Aurangabad has also confirmed the order passed by the Co-operative Court in appeal no.61 of 2017 by judgment and order dated 9.11.2017. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/bank submits that in terms of the provisions of section 105 of the Act of 1960, liquidator is empowered to issue demand notice to the defaulter. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/bank submits that in terms of the provisions of section 105 of the Act of 1960, liquidator is empowered to issue demand notice to the defaulter. The respondent/disputant had not deposited the loan amount in the bank and, there is no entries in the account extract regarding any deposit by the respondents/disputants with the bank. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the District Special Auditors Class-1, crime bearing no.42 of 2009 came to be registered at police station, Beed under section 409, 408, 406, 467, 468, 477 [A], 109, 420, r/w 34 of IPC on 6.5.2009 against the Board of directors and employees. Furthermore, the Reserve Bank of India by order dated 18.3.2010 has also cancelled the license of the Bank and the Commissioner of the Co-operative and Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, State of Maharashtra, Pune has appointed the liquidator on the bank on 25.3.2010 and also closed down the bank business. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the provisions of section 105 of the Cooperative Societies Act, liquidator has every power to call upon the debtor for repayment of the unpaid debts, however, the Court below have not considered this material aspect. Learned counsel submits that public money is involved in this matter and, furthermore, fraud has been played by the Board of directors and, therefore, respondents/disputants contention about repayment of the loan amount is false to his knowledge. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-disputant in all these writ petitions submits that these respondents had applied to the Registrar and obtained permission to file the dispute against the liquidator. Respondents/disputants have not disputed the fact of availing the loan from the petitioner-bank, however, according to them, they have paid the entire amount and the petitioner-bank has issued "Loan Nil Certificate" in favour of the respondents/disputants. Learned counsel submits that the Co-operative Court has carefully examined all the documents submitted alongwith the dispute. Though, the petitioner/bank has examined bank's authorized person, for the first time he has made statement that said 'Loan Nil Certificate" is bogus and prepared by the bank employee Mr. Kazi Rehman Mirza and loan officer. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court has also observed that witness no. 2 of the petitioner/bank has specifically in his cross examination identified the seal on document to be bank seal. Kazi Rehman Mirza and loan officer. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court has also observed that witness no. 2 of the petitioner/bank has specifically in his cross examination identified the seal on document to be bank seal. The said witness has denied his signature on "Loan Nil Certificate". Learned counsel submits that the Ex-Chief Executive Officer in his cross-examination also admitted that, if any borrower or any person deposits any amount in the bank, at that time the cashier in the bank does issue receipt. It is the duty of the bank employees to take said entry of deposit of the money in the record of the bank i.e. day book, sub-book, ledger and computer. He has also admitted that, in case of any misappropriation of the money, then said employee may not take entries of the money deposited in the above said record. Learned counsel submits that further in the list of the documents having due amount more than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) on 30.9.2008, name of respondent/disputant is not included in the borrowers list and said fact is admitted by the Chief Executive Officer. Learned counsel submits that both the Courts below have thus rightly allowed the dispute. There is no substance in these writ petitions. All the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. It is not disputed that the respondent/disputant had availed loan facilities from the petitioner-bank. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court in all these matters has referred the 'settlement of the dues' and 'no dues certificate' issued by the bank. There is nothing on record to dis-believe the evidence of the respondent/ disputant. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court, after examining the documents carefully, held that the respondents/disputants in all these writ petitions have succeeded in proving that they had paid the entire dues as per 'One Time Settlement'. Even the Ex-Chief Executive Officer has also admitted in his cross examination that, if the director/staff of the bank had committed misappropriation of the amount, in that case, even if the borrower deposits the amount in the bank and receipt is issued by the cashier of the bank to that effect, however, the entries to that effect are not taken in the day book, sub-book, ledger and computer in order to misappropriate the said amount. In view of the above the admission, the learned judge of the Cooperative Court has given due weightage to the 'No Dues Certificate' issued by the bank in favour of the respondents/disputants. The learned Judge of the Cooperative Court has recorded the findings on facts and those findings are confirmed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad. I am not inclined to interfere in those findings of facts by exercising the writ jurisdiction. In view of the same, I find no substance in these writ petition. Hence, following order. ORDER Writ Petition No. 11061 of 2015 (Hina Shahin Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Beed through it's Chief Liquidator Vs. Sayyad Navidujjama Sayyad Fakrujjama), Writ Petition no.9014 of 2017 (Hina Shahin Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Beed through it's Chief Liquidator Vs. Mahammad Husain Akbar Husain) and Writ Petition no.9307 of 2019 (Hina Shahin Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Beed through it's Liquidator Vs. Shamshir Khan Yasin Khan) are hereby dismissed.