Disposed

Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2013WP/2132/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking orders against the RBI regarding cancellation of a SARFAESI Act registration. The Court observed the RBI was acting on the complaint and refused to fix a time limit for the decision, stating the matter could not be granted in this writ petition.

What did the court decide?

RBI to consider petitioners' application within a fixed time and other reliefs were not granted.

Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Reserve Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2013)

WPL1915.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1915 OF 2013

¶7

Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. ....Petitioners V/s. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. ....Respondents

¶8

Mr.Rajneesh Agarwal along with Mr.Prakash Shinde, Ms.Priyanka Choksi i/by MDP & partners for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr.Parag Sharma i/by Udwadia Udeshi & Co. for the respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr.Zal Andhyarujina along with Yakshan T for respondent no.2.

¶11

CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶12

DATE : 6th September , 2013.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

1 The petitioners seek two types of reliefs. Firstly, they seek an order directing respondent no.1 to cancel/suspend the certificate of registration granted to respondent no.2 under the SARFAESI Act. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that he would be satisfied with an order fixing a time within which the RBI ought to consider the petitioners’ application in this regard.

¶15

2 WPL1915.13

¶16

2 We have no reason to believe that the RBI is not acting on the complaint. The petitioners made a complaint by a letter dated 9.5.2013. RBI under cover of its letter dated 2.7.2013 forwarded a copy of the complaint to respondent no.2 and sought its response. Respondent no.2 by letter dated 19.8.2013 has responded to the same. There is no reason to believe that RBI has not processed the application. There is no warrant for fixing a time limit for RBI to decide the matter atleast at this stage. There is nothing to indicate that RBI would delay the matter. As far as other reliefs are concerned, the same are not pressed. In any event, they cannot be granted in this Writ petition. Similar reliefs have been sought in the appeal under SARFEASI Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 makes a grievance that the fact that the application has been dismissed and the appeal has been filed before the DRAT has been suppressed.

¶17

3 In the circumstances, the petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶19

(S.J.VAZIFDAR,J)

Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

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

Sandhya Sudhir Mahadik Vs Jogeshwari Education Society and Ors.

Mr. Ramesh Devidas Tarale Vs the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board, and 4 Ors.

M/S. Spectrum Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Housing Secretary and 3 Ors.

Smt.Jayanti Sitaram Aiyar Vs the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Avdhut R. Bhise and 9 Ors. Vs the Joint Director of Vocational Educagion and Traning ,Technical Education and 5 Ors.

Ms. Shradha Mahadev Mahajan Vs the Registrar, University of Bombay