Petitioner bank recovery dispute. Petitioner argued non-pressure of appeal under Securitisation Act due to Supreme Court observations. Bank stated no intention to proceed. Petitioner withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 467 OF 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 320 OF 2007
Tharkude Hotels Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner
V/s
Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar with Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni and Mr.S.S.
Kanitkar i/b Mr.G.S. Godbole for the Petitioner.
Mr.K.V. Tembe for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, ACG. CJ. &
V.M. KANADE, J.
DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY 2007
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Jahagirdar for the Petitioner and
Mr.Tembe for Respondent No.1.
2. The Petitioner is a private limited company
running a hotel at Prabhat Road, Pune. It had taken
good loans from the Respondent Bank and the amount
mounted to over Rs.23,55,00,000/-. A notice under
section 13(2) of the Securiisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
- 2 -
Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Securitisation Act") was given by the Respondent Bank on
11th August 2003. The Petitioner replied on 22nd
September 2003. The case of the Petitioner is that this
reply had to be replied in view of the observations of
the Apex Court earlier in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v.
Union of India - (2004) 4 SCC 311. This provision has
been subsequently incorporated by introducing
sub-section 3(A) in section 13. The grievance of the
Petitioner is that the Bank proceeded to issue a further
notice under section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act
indicating the measures which the Bank proposed to take.
On receiving that notice, the Petitioner filed one more
representation though it did not prefer any appeal as
available under section 17 of the Securitisation Act.
The Bank has issued one more notice under section 13(4)
of the Securitisation Act on 6th February 2007. The
submission of the Petitioner is that it has paid more
than Rs.8 crores in the meanwhile and, according to the
Petitioner, with this payment nothing remains due and
payable to the Respondent Bank.
3. The Bank may have its own position in this
behalf. However, Mr.Tembe, learned counsel for the
Respondent Bank, makes a statement on instructions that
the Bank does not intend to prosecute further the
- 3 -
measures contemplated under the notice under section
13(4) of the Securitisation Act issued on 11th December
2003 or the one now issued on 6th February 2007. The
Bank however maintains the notice issued earlier on 11th
August 2003 under section 13(2) of the Securitisation
Act. Mr.Tembe makes a further statement that the Bank
will reply the representation made by the Petitioner
earlier on 22nd September 2003. Mr.Jahagirdar, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, however, states that now the
Petitioner would like to make a comprehensive
representation on all counts with respect to the earlier
notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act
dated 11th August 2003 and the Petitioner would be
satisfied if the same is responded by the Respondent
Bank. Mr.Tembe assures to do the needful.
4. In view of the aforesaid statement made by
Mr.Tembe, the Petitioner does not press this petition
any more. Petition stands disposed of. Civil
Application also stands disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Tharkude Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd.
H.L. Gokhale
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court