Dismissed

Shri. Sudhakar Bandoba Khot v. State of Maharashtra, through the District Magistrate, Kolhapur and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2012WP/7220/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Court held applying Section 17 proceedings available as alternate remedy. Questions left open; petition disposed with limited liberty to pursue remedy within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Limited liberty to pursue remedy under Section 17 within two weeks; no extension of protection.

Shri. Sudhakar Bandoba Khot Vs State of Maharashtra… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp 722012.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7220 OF 2012

¶5

Sudhakar B. Khot .. Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Datta Pawar a/w Ms. Sonali Patil i/b M/s. Onash Legus for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Samir Patil, AGP for Respondent No. 1

¶10

M.P. Rege i/b M/s. M.P. Rege & Co for Respondent No. 2

¶11

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR &

¶12

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ

¶13

DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Heard the counsel for the respective parties.

¶16

2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 19.06.2012 passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the District Collector, Kolhapur. According to the Petitioner, it was not open to the Respondent Bank to invoke provisions of SARFAESI Act being Co-operative society governed by the State Legislation. To buttress this submission, counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd Vs United Yarn Tex Pvt Ltd reported in

¶17

Pg 1 of 3

¶18

wp 722012.doc

¶19

2007(3) Bom.C.R. 56 wherein in paragraph 56, it has been held that the co-operative banks performing functions for the public with a limited commercial function as opposed to corporate banks cannot be covered by Entry 45 of List I dealing with "banking". Further, the subject of co-operative societies is not included in the Union List but is covered under Entry 32 of List II of Seventh Schedule appended to the Constitution.

¶20

3. In the first place, the Petitioner has not challenged the validity of any provisions of the Act. He has merely challenged the order dated 19.06.2012. We are in agreement with the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent Bank that the Petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy by way of application under Section 17 of the Act. In the said proceedings, it will be open to the Petitioner to raise all possible contentions as may be permissible in law and the same will have to be decided by the said Authority in accordance with law. Indeed, while examining the said argument of the Petitioner, decision of this Court in the case of The Nashik Merchant's Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs M/s. Aditya Hotels Pvt Ltd reported in 2009(4) MAH. L.J. 183 may have to be considered. We are not expressing any opinion with regard to the correctness of the submissions of the Petitioner in the present petition. All questions are left open.

¶21

4. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to

¶22

Pg 2 of 3

¶23

wp 722012.doc

¶24

pursue other remedy as may be permissible in law. The Petitioner may do so within a period of two weeks from today, if so advised, failing which, it will be open to the Respondent Bank to proceed in accordance with law, thereafter, we make it clear that request for extension of this limited protection given to the Petitioner not to take coercive action during the period of two weeks will not be extended on any count whatsoever.

¶25

[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]z

¶26

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶27

Pg 3 of 3

Shri. Sudhakar Bandoba Khot v. State of Maharashtra, through the District Magistrate, Kolhapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sudhakar Bandoba Khot v. State of Maharashtra, through the District Magistrate, Kolhapur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Shivshambho Kanhersidh Vs the Director, Office of Director of Labrary, and Ors.

Rahimtulla Chhotelal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Baban Ramchandra Khude Vs the General Manager, Ammunition Factory and Ors.

Tejaswini Mahila Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Golden Liquor Agencies Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rail Parishad (N.G.O., through, President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi) Vs Union of India and Ors.