Dismissed

Prakash Offset Printers and Ors. v. the Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Oct 2005WP/2935/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held writ petitions infructuous as the recovery certificate under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act had already been issued. An alternate dispute resolution mechanism was ongoing, rendering premature any judicial challenge to the recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitions held infructuous; no coercive recovery steps allowed pending ADR.

Prakash Offset Printers and Ors. Vs the Ichalkaranji… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2935 OF 2004
 WITH
 WRIT PETITION NO. 2936 OF 2004
 WITH
 WRIT PETITION NO. 2937 OF 2004

¶4

 Prakash Offset Printers & Ors. ..Petitioners.

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The Ichalkaranji Urban Co-operative
 Bank Ltd., & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

 -----

¶8

 Ms. Anjali N. Helekar for the Petitioners.
 Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni for the
 Respondent No.1.
 Mr. D.A.Patil, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶9

 -----

¶10

CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J.
DATED : 17TH OCTOBER, 2005.
P.C.:

¶11

 1. It appears that these Petitions have become
 infructuous. The original prayer questioned the
 validity of the recovery proceedings relating to a
 certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra
 Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which has now
 admittedly been issued by the respondents. The
 amended prayer (a-1) questions the validity and
 propriety of the recovery certificate dated
 12.03.2004. I see no reason to entertain this prayer

¶12

 -: 2 :-

¶13

 in view of an alternate remedy available to the

¶14

 petitioners under section 154 of the Act.

¶15

 2. Both the learned counsel state that the
 parties have resorted to an alternate dispute
 resolution. This may go on without prejudice to the
 right of either party to resort to such remedies as
 may be available later on, in case A.D.R. is not
 successful.

¶16

 3. The learned counsel for the respondents states
 that pending ADR, the respondents shall not take
 coercive steps for recovery of the amount under the
 certificate.

¶17

 DT. 17.10.05 (S.A.BOBDE,J)

Prakash Offset Printers and Ors. v. the Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Offset Printers and Ors. v. the Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salim Nooruddin Shaamshi Vs State of Maharashtra

Ms. Marium Zaveri Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Ms. X Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Offset Printers and Ors. Vs the Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Madhukar Laxman Kulkarni Vs Namdev Pandurang Mane and Ors.

Sridhar Sakharam Mahabadi Vs the Dy. Registrar - R Ward and Ors.