A PIL challenging a property auction and accusing the RBI of failing to enquire into foreign funds was dismissed. The court found the loss claim erroneous as the mortgagee recovered full dues, noted absent mortgagors and borrowers, and declined to investigate unproven routing allegations.
The PIL was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil33.14
Shiv
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.33 OF 2014
Rajendra Thacker ...Petitioner. V/s. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Ms.Sumedha Rao for the Petitioner.
Mr.Pankaj Vijayan i/b Intra Legal for Respondent No.2.
Mr.Pravin Samdani, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Bindi Dave, Mr.Pradeep Bhakaru and Mr.Shikhar Khare i/b M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.3.
Mr.Navroz Seervai, Sr.Counsel i/b Crawford Bayley & Co. for Respondent No.5.
Mr.Kusumakar Kaushik with Mr. J.B. Navlani for Respondent No.6. Mr.D.D. Madon, Sr.Counsel with Mr.S.U. Deshmukh for the intervenors.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR &
A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2014.
P.C. :-
Chennai was mortgaged to HDFC Ltd. (wrongly impleaded as
1/4
pil33.14
Housing Development Finance Corporation – Respondent No.3). According to the Petitioner, the property was sold pursuant to an auction to Respondent No.5 – one Niranjan Hiranandani for an amount of Rs.551 crores. According to the Petitioner, the value of the property is far higher. This has caused loss to Respondent No.3 – HDFC Ltd. as the property would have fetched a far higher price.
2/4
pil33.14
against HDFC Ltd. there is no case on merits against it.
3/4
pil33.14
Petition. It is alleged in the PIL as follows :
“The Respondent No.1 has failed in the duty to enquire into the routing of money from Mauritius to Indian Companies which have further availed and defaulted on the loans extended to them by various Banks.”
This order does not prevent any authorities from investigating any illegality, if any, regarding the funding.
(A.K. MENON, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation challenging mortgaged property auction and foreign fund routing is maintainable on merits given lack of impleaded parties and untenable loss claim.
Whether the court should investigate alleged funding of loans from Mauritius in the absence of detailed evidence.
Whether the allegations regarding RBI's duty to enquire into loan routing justify continuation of the PIL.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Thacker
Reserve Bank of India
Punjab National Bank
Housing Development Finance Corporation
Niranjan Hiranandani
Ultima Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
S.J. VAZIFDAR
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
