Allowed

M/S. Krishna Enterprises and Ors. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2009WP/1024/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the impleadment of Asset Reconstruction Company(India) Ltd. as an applicant and granting inspection of the Trust Deed and Deed of Assignment to the Applicants, dismissing the chamber summon applications.

What did the court decide?

Direction to implead Asset Reconstruction Company(India) Ltd. as applicant and to inspect Trust Deed and Deed of Assignment within four weeks.

M/S. Krishna Enterprises and Ors. Vs Development Credit… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1024 OF 2009

¶4

M/s. Krishna Enterprises & Ors.

¶5

..Petitioners.

¶6

v/s.

¶7

Development Credit Bank Ltd. & anr.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

WITH

¶10

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.143 OF 2009 IN

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.1024 OF 2009

¶12

M/s. Krishna Enterprises & Ors.

¶13

..Petitioners.

¶14

v/s.

¶15

Development Credit Bank Ltd. & anr.

¶16

..Respondents.

¶17

And

¶18

Krimpex Synthetics Ltd.

¶19

..Applicant.

¶20

WITH

¶21

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.144 OF 2009 IN

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.1024 OF 2009

¶23

M/s. Krishna Enterprises & Ors.

¶24

..Petitioners.

¶25

v/s.

¶26

Development Credit Bank Ltd. & anr. ..Respondents.

And

..Applicant.

Alpha Omega(Diagnostics) India Ltd.

¶31

Mr.J.P.Sen a/w. Mehul Shah i/b. A.G.Shah for petitioners.

¶32

Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar a/w Sheetal Shah i/b. Mehta & Girdharlal for intervenors.

¶33

Mr.P.K.Samdani a/w Vinod Kothari i/b. Apex Law Partners for Respondent No.2.

¶34

CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR,CJ. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

¶35

DATED :- AUGUST 4, 2009.

¶36

P.C.

¶37

There were two applications filed before the Presiding Officer, Debt

¶38

Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai. One for impleadment as applicants and the other application was filed by the Respondent praying for inspection of the documents such as Assignment Agreement dated 13^th March, 2008, Deed of Trust dated 11^th March, 2009 etc.. By order dated 29^th January, 2009, the Application for inspection of two documents was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, II, Mumbai, against which, an Appeal was filed, being Misc.Appeal No.46 of 2009, which came to be disposed of by order dated 17^th April, 2009. In the said Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal passed an order directing that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai shall dispose of the Application of the proposed Applicants dated 24/9/2008 and if they are

¶39

¶40

impleaded in the case, then the order dated 29/1/2009 shall stand revived and then inspection be furnished; even gave liberty to the appellant to move for modification of the impugned order dated 29/1/2009.

¶41

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The Application for impleadment has been moved as the Applicants claim to be the assignee of the debt and thus they were necessary party to the proceedings. Inspection sought, which was allowed by the DRT is of the Deed of Assignment and Deed of Trust, which are the foundation for that claim.

¶42

We find that these applications are only delaying the principal proceedings and neither serves the purpose of justice, much less ends of justice. Application for impleadment though has not been specifically considered by the DRT and has been kept pending, directly and indirectly inspection of two documents are allowed. Order challenged in the present Writ Petition essentially refers to both aspects and we are of the considered view that the Applicants being the Assignee of the Trust deed are necessary party of the proceedings. Therefore, Asset Reconstruction Company(India) Ltd. be ordered to be impleaded as party and inspection as prayed for by

¶43

¶44

them should also be provided.

¶45

Thus, we dispose of this Writ Petition with direction that there shall be impleadment of applicants and inspection of the documents of the Trust Deed and Deed of Assignment. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. They will be at liberty to raise all contentions on merits.

¶46

Petition disposed of accordingly. Amendment be carried out within four weeks and inspection be provided within the same period.

¶47

In view of disposal of the Petition, nothing survives in the Chamber

¶48

Summons. The same are disposed of accordingly.

¶49

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

M/S. Krishna Enterprises and Ors. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Krishna Enterprises and Ors. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd.

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Vs M/S. M.V. Patel and Co.

Saritha Sukumaran Vs M/S. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.

Martin Daniel Bhalerao Vs D B Power Electronics (P) Ltd.

Rakesh Champalalji Kothari, Mumbai. Vs Champalalji Kesrimalji Kothari and Anothers.

Dr. Dhananjay Tatyasaheb Dhaygude Vs Pravesh Niyanthran and Shikshan Shulk Samiti for Admission and Anr.