Dismissed

Prakash Offset Printers, through Partners, Prakash B. Khanjire and Ors. v. Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, through Liquidator and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2012WP/1677/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed writ petitions seeking to quash an order rejecting a one-time settlement proposal from 2003. The court held that since the proposal was already considered and rejected in a previous writ petition, the current petition was devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed; the Bank was directed to furnish the copy of the O.T.S. Scheme to the petitioners.

Prakash Offset Printers, through Partners, Prakash… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 167712

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1677 OF 2012 Prakash Offset Printers ...Petitioner V/s. Itchalkarnji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1678 OF 2012 Arundhati Colour Cartoons ...Petitioner V/s. Itchalkarnji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1679 OF 2012 Kishor Traders ...Petitioner V/s. Itchalkarnji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1680 OF 2012 Indu Tin Printers ...Petitioner V/s. Itchalkarnji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶3

2 167712

¶4

AND

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1681 OF 2012

Indu Enterprises

...Petitioner

V/s.

Itchalkarnji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for the Petitioners

¶11

Mr. N.J. Patil for Respondent No. 1

¶12

Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5

¶13

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND

¶14

N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: MARCH 1, 2012

¶15

P.C .:-

¶16

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶17

All these matters involve common questions, and were argued together. We shall advert to the facts of the leading matter, for the sake of convenience.

¶18

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶19

India, it is prayed that the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 23^rd

¶20

3 167712

¶21

January, 2012 be quashed and set aside. Instead, respondent No. 1 be directed to allow the petitioner to avail of One Time Settlement Scheme as per the application filed by the petitioner on 26^th April, 2003.

¶22

We shall first deal with the second part of the prayer clause. In our opinion, it is not open to the petitioners to seek direction against respondent No. 1 to consider the One Time Settlement proposal submitted by the petitioner on 26^th April, 2003. We say so because the petitioner had filed Writ Petition for similar relief, and in particular complaining about inaction of the Authorities in not processing the proposal submitted by the petitioner of One Time Settlement dated 26^th April, 2003, being Writ Petition No. 6818 of 2011. In the said writ petition, the first respondent-Bank filed affidavit and placed on record that the proposal submitted by the petitioner was considered and rejected. That was communicated to the petitioner on 28^th May, 2003. This statement of facts is found in paragraph 17 of the reply-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 6818 of 2011. Significantly, the said writ petition was eventually disposed of on the basis of assurance given by the first respondent Bank in paragraph 19 of the reply-affidavit, the relevant portion whereof reads thus:-

¶23

“Respondent No.1 Liquidator is ready to implement the OTS Scheme to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions

¶24

4 167712

¶25

approved by the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-op. Societies, M.S., Pune.”

¶26

The Division Bench, while disposing of the said writ petition on 4^th January, 2012 has not only specifically adverted to the stand taken by the first respondent-Bank in paragraph 19 of the replyaffidavit, but accepted the said stand and directed the first respondentBank to consider the proposal of the petitioner on that basis. No liberty was prayed or given to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Bank in rejecting the one time settlement proposal of the petitioner dated 26^th April, 2003. In that sense, the challenge to the rejection of proposal for one time settlement submitted by the petitioner on 26^th April, 2003 attained finality in terms of order dated 4^th January, 2012. What remained to be considered is of extending all benefits as may be available to the petitioner and similarly placed persons under the O.T.S. Scheme (2011) approved by the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, concerning the liquidation of the first respondent-Bank. As the Bank has gone in liquidation, Liquidator has been appointed on the first respondent-Bank. He is obliged to comply with the O.T.S. Scheme (2011) as approved by the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is not the case of the petitioner

¶27

that the Liquidator of respondent No.1-Bank has denied any benefits as

¶28

5 167712

¶29

may be available to the petitioner provided in the said O.T.S. Scheme (2011) approved by the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies. All concerned, including the petitioner, who is a debtor of the first respondent-Bank in liquidation, are bound by the said Scheme. In the present petition, there is no challenge to the said Scheme.

¶30

In our opinion, therefore, no fault can be found with the communication dated 23^rd January, 2012 issued under the signature of the General Manager of the first respondent-Bank in liquidation, which plainly states that the petitioner will be given all benefits as may be available under the O.T.S. Scheme (2011) approved by the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, M.S., Pune.

¶31

The counsel for the petitioner would, then, contend that copy of the said O.T.S. Scheme (2011) has not been made available. As regards this grievance, we have no hesitation in calling upon the first respondent-Bank to forthwith furnish any of the said Scheme to the petitioner, even if it has already been furnished.

¶32

For the reasons recorded above, the petition deserves to be dismissed, being devoid of merits. The petitioner is free to pursue their

¶33

6 167712

¶34

request with the first respondent-Bank, which proposal will have to be taken forward in consonance with the O.T.S. Scheme (2011).

¶35

The reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Curt in Sardar Associates & Ors. v. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. , reported in (2009) 8 S.C.C. 257, will have no application to the present case, as the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the correctness of the decision taken by the first respondent-Bank in the year 2003 in rejecting its one time settlement proposal. That challenge was open to the petitioner in the first Writ Petition, which was not taken to tis logical end by it.

¶36

Accordingly, these petitions fail. The same are dismissed with the above observations.

¶37

N.M. JAMDAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Prakash Offset Printers, through Partners, Prakash B. Khanjire and Ors. v. Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, through Liquidator and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Offset Printers, through Partners, Prakash B. Khanjire and Ors. v. Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, through Liquidator and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Suryakant Vaidya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Suryakant Vaidya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pandharinath Laxman Waghade and Ors. Vs the President, Centralized Pre-Recruitment Eligibility Examination Applicant'S Grievances and Ors.

Modern Usha Colony Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bhagwandas Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Kolhapur and Ors.