Disposed

Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Sept 2010WP/1918/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay passed a consent order in a writ petition concerning a banking matter, directing the third respondent to deposit Rs. 2.50 crores to prevent auction proceedings and maintain status quo pending revisional application disposal.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 ordered to deposit Rs. 2.50 crores; status quo maintained pending revision application disposal; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

jmi

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2010.

¶5

Sangli Sahakari Bank Limited. v/s.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. H. Toor, a/w. Mr. S.B. Pawar, i/b. S.G. Bane, for Petitioners Mr, Niranjan Pandit, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Fredun D'Vitre, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. Sanjay Jain, a/w. Mr. N. Sridharan, a/w. Mr. T.N. Tripathi, a/w. Ms. Sapana Rachure, i/b. T.N. Tripathi & Co., for Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The following order is passed by consent of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 :-

¶13

(i) The Respondent No.3 shall deposit with the Petitioners Bank an amount of Rs.2.50 crores on or before 13th October 2010.

¶14

(ii) If the Respondent No.3 fails to deposit the said amount on or before 13th October 2010 as stated above, the Revision Application No.249 of 2010 shall stand dismissed and the Petitioners shall be free to proceed with the auction.

¶15

(iii)If the Respondent No.3 deposits the said amount with the Petitioners as set out in clause (i) above, Parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 14th October 2010 at

¶16

¶17

12.00 noon and obtain necessary directions and the Respondent No.2 shall after hearing the parties, dispose of the Revision Application on or before 15th November 2010.

¶18

(iv) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶19

(v) In the event of the Respondent succeeding before the Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 249 of 2010, the Petitioners shall within a period of one week from the date of service of the said order on them, unconditionally hand over the said amount of Rs.2.50 crores to the Advocates for the Respondent No.3. Needless to add that the Petitioners shall do so notwithstanding the fact that they may be pursuing further remedies available to them in law.

¶20

(vi) Until disposal of Revision Application No. 249 of 2010, parties shall maintain status-quo as of today.

¶21

Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of with no order

¶22

as to costs.

¶23

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Krishna S/O. Shankar Gaikwad Vs Peeriess Construction Pvt.Ltd.

M/S. Bikay Liquors Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Collector of Mumbai (City) and 2 Ors.

Ramesh L Ruparel Vs Bachubhai Bldg. Co-Op Hsg Sco Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Sajid N.Vora Vs Municipal Corp. of Greater Bombay.

Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Limited and Anr. Vs Dr. Mahesh Salunke Patil, Asst. Registrar Co-Operastive Soceities and 3 Ors.

Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Limited Vs Dr. Mahesh Salunke Patil, Asst. Registrar Co-Operastive Soceities and 3 Ors.