Dismissed

Dena Bank v. Dr. Pranjivan Purshottam Zaveri and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2007WP/1963/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which granted exemption from pre-deposit to Dena Bank. The Hon'ble Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's view that the respondents, having purchased the attached property, were not 'borrowers' under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed leaving parties to bear costs; the Appellate Tribunal directed to expedite hearing.

Dena Bank Vs Dr. Pranjivan Purshottam Zaveri and 3 Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1963 OF 2007

Dena Bank

..Petitioner.

Vs.

Dr. Pranjivan Purshottam Zaveri and others

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Ranjig Shetty with Mr. Pritesh Gor i/b PDS Legal for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S.U. Kamdar with Mr. Hemant Sethi for Respondents 1 and 2. ....

¶11

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 10^th October, 2007.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 16^th August, 2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. It is a conceded case before us that Respondents 1 and 2 are neither the borrowers nor the guarantors in relation to the transaction in question. These Respondents had just purchased the property from the borrower which property in turn has already been attached and taken possession by the bank. Even if the case of the bank is taken at face value, the liability of the Appellant shall be limited to the extent of the property which has already been taken possession by the bank and the bank

¶14

¶15

would have no further cause of action against these two Respondents. Ofcourse they are at liberty to proceed against the borrowers or the guarantors, as the case may be, in accordance with law. Keeping in view these facts, the appellate authority while exercising its discretion under Section 18 of the the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Act granted exemption to the Appellant from the condition of pre-deposit. The basic argument was that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not covered under the term 'borrower' appearing in Section 2(f) of the Act which approach apparently neither suffers from any legal infirmity nor is any observation called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, we see no merit in the Petition. The same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the Appellate Tribunal may expedite the hearing of the Appeal.

¶16

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶17

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Dena Bank v. Dr. Pranjivan Purshottam Zaveri and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dena Bank v. Dr. Pranjivan Purshottam Zaveri and 3 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

State of Maharashtra through Spl.Land Acq.Officer. Vs Dipak Vasanji Thakkar and Ors.

State of Maharashtra. Vs Roshanlal Lachiram Agarwal and Anr.

Shri Pradeep Mohanlal Kankariya Vs the Commoissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Madhavnath Baburao Tamboli

Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Sena Vs Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District and 2 Ors.

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi Vs the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District and 2 Ors.