Dismissed

United Bank of India v. M/S. Rajpra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others

Bombay HC23 Mar 2009WP/2734/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a bank against an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal directing a deposit as a condition precedent for hearing an appeal. The court found no reason to interfere given the deposited sum and protected interest.

What did the court decide?

The High Court saw no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

United Bank of India Vs M/S. Rajpra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others — Bombay HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2734 OF 2008

¶3

United Bank of India. .. Petitioner Vs. .. M/s. Rajpra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents

¶4

Shri S.A. Bhalwal i/by Vyas & Bhalwal for the Petitioner. Shri A. Ramakrishnan, Noticee- Purchaser.

¶5

Ms Neeta Madhyani i/by S.M. Associates for Respondent No.1.

¶6

¶7

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATED : 23RD MARCH, 2009.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 16^th May, 2008. Vide this order, the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents hereto to deposit a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks as condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal. It is not in dispute before us that the sum of Rs.35,00,000/- has already been deposited with the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It is the Bank which felt aggrieved from the order has filed the present Writ Petition. It is our view that admitted liability as of today is nearly Rs.2 Crores and on the date of passing of the order it was Rs.1,34,33,000/- and therefore, the

¶10

¶11

condition of deposit of Rs.35,00,000/- is not unreasonable and unjustifiable. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, we had also directed the notice to the prospective purchasers as the property mortgaged to the bank was put to an auction and some interest of auction purchasers has certainly accrued in the meanwhile. Learned Counsel appearing for the auction purchasers submits that they may go ahead with the sale but that is not the matter before us to determine. It will be for the Tribunal/Competent Authority to adjudicate upon these contentions on merits or otherwise.

¶12

As far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, the property is mortgaged with the bank. Thus, the property is available to the bank. In addition thereto, the sum of Rs.35,00,000/- has been ordered to be deposited and as such the interest of the bank is sufficiently protected. Learned Counsel appearing for the Debtor has also stated that thay have no objection if the present auction purchaser purchases the property for Rs.1,52,00,000/- and the same is confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser.

¶13

In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the

¶14

¶15

impugned order. Liberty to the parties to request for expeditious

¶16

hearing of the Appeal to the Tribunal/Competent Authority.

¶17

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,

¶19

United Bank of India v. M/S. Rajpra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Bank of India v. M/S. Rajpra Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others

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

Shinde Sarjerao Mahadeo Vs Principal Secretary (Home) to Government of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Dr. Shailaja Avinash Patwardhan Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Kasturilal Joneja Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Venkatesh Pradyumnacharya Varakhedakar (Decd.)by Lrs.-Bheemacharya (Bheemasen)Vyankatesh Varakhedak Vs Maharashtra State and Ors.

Indur Kartar Chhugani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Venkatesh Pradyumnacharya Varakhedakar (Decd.)by Lrs.-Bheemacharya (Bheemasen)Vyankatesh Varakhedak Vs Maharashtra State and Ors.