Dismissed

Karad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Administrator of the Specified Undetaking of the Unit Trust of India and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Nov 2009CAW/2368/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the civil application filed by a co-operative bank seeking to set aside a previous order dismissing the writ petition, citing that original respondents were not impleaded and existing parties should not have been joined.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected on the ground that original respondents were not impleaded and existing parties should not have been joined.

Karad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2368 OF 2009 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5933 OF 2003

¶4

Karad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. ..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Debt Recovery Tribunal and ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Dr. M. Shah Alam Khan for petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayarikar, AGP for State.

¶8

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO, JJ.

¶9

November 04, 2009.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner which is a Co-operative Bank. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5933 of 2003 challenging the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai in O.A. No. 3335 of 2000 as well as the subsequent order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai in Appeal No. 122 of 2002. The order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 45,45,437.68 with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1/10/2000 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal came to be confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Writ Petition No. 5933 of 2003 was admitted and the prayer for interim relief was refused as per the order passed by this court on 12/9/2003. Subsequently, as per the order passed on 9/8/2004, the petition came to be dismissed against respondent no.2 and by a further order

¶12

¶13

dated 17/1/2005 it came to be dismissed against respondent no.1. On 20/4/2006 the petition came to be dismissed against respondent nos.3 to 5 and this application has been filed praying for setting aside the order dated 20/4/2006 as is obvious because the respondent nos.1 to 3 in this application were respondent nos.3 to 5 in the writ petition.

¶14

The respondent nos.3 to 5 in the writ petition were only formal parties and they, in fact, should not have been impleaded. The decree was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the application filed by Unit Trust of India through its Deputy General Manager – Shri B.H. Kini i.e. the respondent no.1. The address of respondent no.1 was not furnished in the petition memo. In this application the original respondent nos.1 and 2 have not been impleaded.

¶15

Hence, this application cannot be considered and the same is

¶16

hereby rejected.

¶17

(R.Y. GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Karad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Administrator of the Specified Undetaking of the Unit Trust of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Administrator of the Specified Undetaking of the Unit Trust of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sopan Suresh Sonawane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat T. Vora Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mari Raman Devendra and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nurmahamad Mahamad Juvale

Narayan Vishnu Paithankar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajan Pandurang Parkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.