Quashed

Godavari Laxmi Co. Op Bank Ltd. through Managing Director v. Union of India through Ministry of Finance and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2011WP/4461/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Appellate Tribunal's order allowing a waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, holding that the bank's claimed present outstanding amount was the correct basis for the deposit.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowing waiver of pre-deposit was quashed and set aside; the matter remitted to the DRAT.

Godavari Laxmi Co. Op Bank Ltd. through Managing… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

wp4461-11.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4461/2011

¶5

Godavari Laxmi Co-op. Bank Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Shri Ashok s/o Totaram Mahajan, 31, Navi Peth, Opp.Godavari Hospital M.J.College Road, Jalgaon.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] The Union of India Through Ministry of Finance [Copy to be served Additional Solicitor General Standing Counsel for Union of India in the High Court]

¶9

2] Maharashtra Boiler & Tubing Corporation, Prop.Mohd.Shafi Mohd.Hussain Hamdule, R/o Hamdule Mansion, Plot no.15 survey no.167, Ajanta Road, Near S.T.Workshop, Jalgaon.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Mr.S.S.Deve,Adv.for petitioner.

¶12

Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar,Standing counsel for respondent no.1. Mr.A.G.Talhar,Adv.for respondent no.2.

¶13

wp4461-11.odt

¶14

¶15

CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 9th DECEMBER^, 2011

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

1] By an order dated 20/9/2011, notice for final disposal was issued. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally.

¶19

2] The respondent no.2 is borrower of petitioner Godavari Laxmi Cooperative Bank Ltd. The respondent no.2 filed proceedings u/s 17 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short the Act of 2002] consequent to the issuance of notice u/s 13(4) of the said Act. By judgment and order dated 7/3/2011, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad dismissed the Securitisation Application No.08/2010.

¶20

¶21

wp4461-11.odt

¶22

3] Respondent no.2 preferred an Appeal under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. Respondent no.2 filed application bearing No.M.A.328/11 in Appeal No.66/11 seeking waiver of deposit as prescribed u/s 18 (1) of the Act of 2002 on 24/3/2011. The appellant filed reply to the said application. By order dated 27/4/11 the Appellate Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondent no.2 by observing that respondent no.2 herein cannot be asked to deposit any more amount and no amount is required to be deposited u/s 18(1) of the Act of 2002. The petitioner bank has questioned the correctness and legality of the said order in the present petition.

¶23

4] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri Deve submits that notice u/s 13 [2] of the Act of 2002 was issued by the bank on 11/5/2007. A notice was issued resorting the provisions of Section 13[4] of the Act of 2002 on 26/12/2009. The notice is titled as possession notice. The relevant portion of the notice which is ascertained from the original record is reproduced hereinbelow :

wp4461-11.odt

“Whereas,

The undersigned being the Authorised Officer of the Godavari Laxmi Co-op. Bank Ltd. Jalgaon under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest [Act 2002 (54 of 2002)] and in exercise of powers conferred under section 13(12) read with rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, issued Demand Notice dated 11/05/2007 calling upon the borrower Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Husen Humduley Prop. Maharashtra Boiler & Tubining Corporation to repay the amount mentioned in the notice being Rs.45,61.459.54 + Intt (Rupees Forty Five Lac Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Nine & Paise Fifty Four Only) within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice has present outstanding Rs. 24,61,985.54 + intt. + expenses as on 30.11.2009.

¶28

The borrower having failed to repay full amount even after many chances, notice is hereby given to the borrower and the public in general that the undersigned has taken symbolic possession of the property described herein below in exercise of powers conferred on him under section 13(4) of the said Act read with rule 9 on this 26^th day of Dec. of the year 2009.

¶29

The borrower in particular and the public in general is hereby cautioned not to deal with the property. Any dealings with the property will be subject to the charge of the Godavari Laxmi Co-op.Bank Ltd. Jalgaon for an amount of Rs.24,61,985.54 and interest, cost

wp4461-11.odt

& expenses thereon.”

5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Tribunal erred in clubbing the figures as mentioned in the notice u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. There was error on the part of Tribunal in accepting the contentions of the respondent no. 2 that sum of Rs.41.50 Lakhs was already deposited by the respondent no.2 with the petitioner subsequent to the notice issued u/s 13(2) of the Act of 2002. Respondent no.2 did not comply with the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Act.

¶34

6] In the facts of the case, according to the learned counsel for petitioner, respondent no.2 has not deposited 50% of the amount which is due from respondent no.2 as claimed by the secured creditor. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 2011 S.C. 1913 [Narayan Chandra Bhosh V/s UCO Bank and Ors.] in support of his submissions.

¶35

7] The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that proceedings were initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,

¶36

¶37

wp4461-11.odt

¶38

Aurangabad consequent to the notice issued by the petitioner u/s 13(4) of the Act 2002. Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 relates to the amount claimed by the bank in notice issued u/s 13(2) of the Act of 2002. The counsel further submits that in the possession notice, the petitioner bank had referred to outstanding amount of Rs.45,61,459.54 + interest and the present outstanding amount of Rs.24,61,985.54 + interest + expenses as on 30/11/2009. It is submitted that even if these two figures of amount claimed are clubbed together, it can be ascertained that the respondent no.2 having paid 41.50 lakhs in favour of the petitioner bank, the pre condition for entertaining Appeal u/s 18 by Appellate Tribunal gets satisfied. In other words, the respondent no.2 claims that having deposited 50% of the amount due from respondent no.2 his Appeal filed before Appellate Tribunal shall be entertained without calling upon the respondent no.2 to deposit any further amount.

¶39

8] We have perused the original record and proceedings, the impugned order, reply filed by respondent, and the relevant notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent no.2. We have perused

¶40

wp4461-11.odt

¶41

¶42

the judgment cited supra.

¶43

9] There is no dispute between the parties that the bank had issued notice u/s 13(2) of the Act of 2002 on 11/5/2007. The petitioner-bank had also resorted to measures as prescribed u/s 13(4) of the Act of 2002 by issuing a possession notice on 26/12/2009. The bank is entitled u/s 13(4) of the Act of 2002 to take recourse to measures provided under the said provisions to recover the secured debt on failure of borrower to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub Section 2 of the Act.

¶44

10] In the facts of the case and considering the notice issued u/s 13(2) of the Act of 2002, we find that the petitioner bank had claimed as present outstanding, an amount of Rs.24,61,985.54 Ps. and accordingly, the charge was kept upon the subject property by intimating public in general. The bank had described the immovable property over which the charge was kept in the notice issued u/s 13(4) on 26/12/2009. Under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 2002, any person aggrieved by any of the

¶45

¶46

wp4461-11.odt

¶47

measures referred to in sub Section 4 of Section 13, is entitled to approach D.R.T. Under the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act, any person aggrieved by any order passed by D.R.T. u/s 17 may prefer an appeal alongwith such fees as may be prescribed. The second proviso to Section 18 of the said Act provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal 50% of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditor [emphasis supplied].

¶48

11] In the facts of the present case and considering the notice issued by the petitioner bank to respondent no.2 it is clear that the amount due and claimed by the petitioner from respondent no.2 for the purposes of entertaining the appeal by Appellate Tribunal would be amount of Rs.24,61,985.54 Ps.

¶49

12] We find that the Appellate Tribunal committed error in waiving the mandatory condition of pre deposit by the respondent no.2 before entertaining the appeal as stipulated under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2002. In the light of the

¶50

9 wp4461-11.odt

¶51

reasonings adopted by us as above, we find that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶52

13] We accordingly quash and set aside the order passed by the

¶53

Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in M.A.No.323/2011 in Appeal No.66/2011 dated 27/4/2001. The D.R.A.T. Mumbai shall pass appropriate order in the light of provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2002 keeping in view the amount due as claimed from respondent no.2 by petitioner as a secured creditor to the extent of Rs.24,61,985.54 Ps. Rule is made absolute in the the above terms.

¶54

14] At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no.2 prayed for stay to the operation of this order for a period of 2 weeks. Request is refused.

¶55

(T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

¶56

umg/wp4461-11

Godavari Laxmi Co. Op Bank Ltd. through Managing Director v. Union of India through Ministry of Finance and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godavari Laxmi Co. Op Bank Ltd. through Managing Director v. Union of India through Ministry of Finance and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kamalnayan Bharuka Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mangesh Prataprao More Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Krishna Nago Choudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vaibhav Subhash Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rashtriya Shikshan Samiti Nanded Vs the Education Officer Secondary Z P Nanded and Ors.

Jalna District Central Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs Ashok Sitaram Kodande