Dismissed

National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Honble Estate Officer, Dena Bank and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2013CAW/1316/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a civil application seeking modification of an interim order to allow the petitioner to submit a bank guarantee instead of depositing cash. The Court denied the request to replace cash with a guarantee but extended the time for depositing the amount.

What did the court decide?

Request to submit bank guarantee instead of cash deposit was denied. Time for depositing cash extended till 17.6.2013.

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Honble Estate… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CA1316 wt WP3441-13.doc

¶3

Sequeira

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1316 OF 2013 in

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3441 OF 2013

¶7

National Textile Corporation Ltd. (Maharashtra North) Ltd (now known as National Textile Corporation Ltd (Western Region) .. Petitioner / Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Hon’ble Estate officer, Dena Bank & ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr.Hiralal Thakkar with Ms Mamta Sadh & Swapnila Rane i/b M/s Kachwaha & Partners, for petitioner / applicant. Mr.Rajesh Shethia a/w Mr.Chetan Shah, for respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Friday 14 June 2013

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

This Civil application is taken out by the original petitioner with a prayer that the applicant be permitted to submit a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1.25 crores, by suitably modifying the order dated 16 April 2013.

¶14

On 16 April 2013 by a detailed order this Court was pleased to admit the Writ petition and direct the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.1.25 crores within a period of four weeks. The Court prima facie found that the applicant may not be liable for compensation for a period

¶15

¶16

CA1316 wt WP3441-13.doc

¶17

between initiation of proceedings and the order of the Civil Court dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No.5. The Court however, prima facie found that the petitioner will be liable to pay damages during the period between the order of City Civil Court dated 14 July 2008 till January 2013, totalling to around Rs.2.5 crores. The Court by balancing equities directed the applicant to deposit 50 % of the amount with a further direction to invest the same in, fixed deposit of a Nationalised bank. The amount of 50% was calculated at Rs.1.25 crores.

¶18

On 14 May 2013, the applicants moved the Writ petition for extension of time before the vacation Court and following order came to be passed -

¶19

“Time to deposit amount of Rs.1.25 crores as per the directions of this Court contained in the order dated 16^th April 2013 is extended by further period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted”.

¶20

The applicant again moved the Writ petition before the vacation Court on 3 June 2013, and the following order came to be passed.

¶21

“1. Not on Board. On request taken on board.

¶22

Heard rival submissions. Earlier by orders dated 16.4.2013 and 14.5.2013 time was extended for a period of three weeks from 14.5.2013 allowing the petitioner/National Textiles Corporation Ltd to deposit an amount of Rs.1.25 crores. Today, the prayer is made on behalf of the petitioner asking for modification of the order praying that instead of depositing cash amount, bank guarantee may be allowed. This request has been opposed by the respondent Dena Bank. By order dated 14.5.2013 even this Court had granted the extension of time to deposit the amount till three weeks from 14.5.2013 as a last chance. However, still

¶23

CA1316 wt WP3441-13.doc

¶24

¶25

considering the request of the petitioner, time to deposit the amount of Rs.1.25 crores is extended till 14.6.2013”.

¶26

I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 16 April 2013 does not specifically state that the applicant will not be permitted to submit bank guarantee and that the applicant must deposit the amount. The learned counsel submits that the applicant being a Government of India Company need not be directed to deposit the amount and the applicant is ready to furnish suitable bank guarantee. The learned counsel for the respondents opposes the request. The learned counsel for respondents points out that similar request has been rejected by this Court.

¶27

Though it is correct that the applicant had moved the Court in vacation for simplicitor extension of time, but it is to be noted that a specific request for modification of the order was made on 3 June 2013, which request was opposed and the Court has specifically referred to order dated 14 May 2013 and still granted only extension of time and no permission for furnishing bank guarantee was given. It was submitted that, the Court had given liberty for modification of the order and pursuant to liberty present Civil application is taken out. However, no such liberty has been given by order dated 3 June 2013. Once a specific request has been rejected by this Court and it cannot be considered by way of Civil application again.

¶28

It was suggested to the learned counsel for the applicant that instead of keeping aside the amount in bank guarantee the same could be

¶29

4 CA1316 wt WP3441-13.doc

¶30

deposited with the respondent Bank in a Fixed deposit where it shall remain till the disposal of the petition and the interest accrued thereupon will be added to the amount invested in Fixed deposit without the respondent Bank being permitted to withdraw the said interest. The learned counsel for the respondents was agreeable to this suggestion. However learned counsel for the applicant is unable to make a statement. Considering the procedural formalities that may be required for deposit of the amount, time to deposit the amount is extended till 17 June 2013.

¶31

Civil application is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Honble Estate Officer, Dena Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Honble Estate Officer, Dena Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayashri Dilip Kumbhar Vs M. D. Pawar Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Urun-Islampur and Ors.

Shri. Dattaram Gunaji Jadhav and Ors. Vs the Dy. Collector (Encroach), Mumbai City and Ors.

Kashinath Piraji Dege Vs the Commissioner of Police, Dist. Thane and Ors.

Shri. Santosh Baban Daswadkar Vs Shri. Chandrakant Hanuwati Shendkar and Ors.

Namdeo Shantaram Kurup Vs State of Maharashtra, by Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Anr.

M/S.B.N. Enterprises, Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.