Disposed

Nashik Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC7 Mar 2014WP/2558/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court At Bombay Bench At Aurangabad disposed of three writ petitions. The Court directed the Collector and Chief Executive Officer to comply with Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2004, by expeditiously taking possession of secured assets and effecting recovery of dues within two months, despite objections regarding pending appeals.

What did the court decide?

Direction to ensure compliance of orders under Section 14 of the Act by taking possession of secured assets and effecting recovery within two months.

Nashik Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp2476.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2476 OF 2013

¶5

Nashik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. Nashik (Multi State Scheduled Bank) Having its administrative office at A-16, Padmashree Babubhai Rathi Chowk, Subhash Chandra Bose Marg, Industrial Estate, Satpur, Nashik Through its Authorised officer .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through District Magistrate, Ahmednagar.

¶8

The Chief Officer, Shrirampur Municipal Council Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶9

Jaswant s/o Nirmalsing Sachdev age 54 years, occ. business Prop. M/s Guru Auto Belapur Road, Shrirampur Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. S. R. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner. Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for the State. Mr. V. S. Bedre, advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. N. R. Bhavar, advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 2494 OF 2013

¶12

Nashik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. Nashik (Multi State Scheduled Bank) Having its administrative office at A-16, Padmashree Babubhai Rathi Chowk,

¶13

wp2476.13

¶14

¶15

Subhash Chandra Bose Marg, Industrial Estate, Satpur, Nashik Through its Authorised officer

¶16

.. PETITIONER

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

The State of Maharashtra Through District Magistrate, Ahmednagar.

¶19

The Chief Officer, Shrirampur Municipal Council Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶20

Shaikh Iqbal Abdul Karim age 50 years, occ. business Prop. M/s Krushan Read-made Ramchandra towers, Newas Kad Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS

¶21

Mr. S. R. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner. Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for the State. Mr. V. S. Bedre, advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. N. R. Bhavar, advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 2558 OF 2013

¶23

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

The State of Maharashtra Through District Magistrate, Ahmednagar.

¶26

wp2476.13

¶27

¶28

The Chief Officer, Shrirampur Municipal Council Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Nandkishor s/o Ramchandra Tekawade age 56 years, occ. business, Prop. M/s Dipali old scrap Centre, Ward NO. 3, Bhangarbazar Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S. R. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner. Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for the State. Mr. V. S. Bedre, advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. N. R. Bhavar, advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 7th MARCH, 2014.

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶30

Heard.

¶31

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶32

Petitioner is seeking direction to the Collector to ensure compliance

¶33

of the directions which are already issued by him on 03.06.2010. It is not

¶34

wp2476.13

¶35

¶36

disputed that the matter has been moved by the petitioner - bank for effecting recovery of dues by attachment of secured assets. The Collector, in view of section 14 of the Act, is duty bound to implement the orders and effect recovery under the provisions of Securitisation Act, 2004. It appears that the Collector has appointed the Chief Executive Officer to take possession of the secured assets and dispose of the same and recover the amount. It is the grievance of the bank that inspite of issuance of order in the year 2010, nothing has been done even after lapse of four years. Mr. Bedre, learned counsel for the Chief Executive Officer informs that the owner of the property has created obstructions in enforcement of the directives issued by the Collector and as such order could not be implemented.

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioner invites our attention to the judgment

¶38

of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of HDFC Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 305 . In paragraph no. 5 of the judgment, referring to the judgment in the matter of Trade Well Vs.

¶39

Indian Bank reported in 2007(2) Mh.L.J. 412 , it is observed thus :

¶40

The Collector would be bound to follow the principle of law which has been laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench. It does not lie within the jurisdiction of the Collector under section 14 to enter upon an adjudication of the merits of the

¶41

wp2476.13

¶42

¶43

claim of the Bank. The limited parameters of his jurisdiction have been explained by the Division Bench in Trade Well. In this view of the matter, we direct that the Second Respondent shall expeditiously conclude the pending applications, and in any event, within a period of one month from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced on his record. We also direct that in all future cases, all Collectors and District Magistrates shall maintain a record of applications received and endeavour to conclude the hearing of those applications and pass final orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months. We clarify that we have not entered upon the merits of the individual applications concerning borrowers in the present case who are not parties to these proceedings. We have entered upon the grievance of the Petitioner since it related to the failure of the Collector to adhere to the legal principles enunciated in the judgment of this Court in relation to the exercise of the powers under section 14.

¶44

Learned counsel for original owner of the secured assets contends

¶45

that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is subjected to challenge before the appellate authority and in the absence of the appellate authority, necessary orders could not be obtained. It is pointed out by petitioner that an application was moved to the Debt Recovery Tribunal

¶46

which was barred by more than 900 days and since the tribunal refused to entertain the application, the original owner has moved appellate forum.

¶47

The fact however remains that the order issued long back by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in respect of recovery of debt has not been stayed by any

¶48

wp2476.13

¶49

¶50

forum till this date. In these circumstances, it is the legal responsibility of the Collector to act in accordance with section 14 of the Act coupled with the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court reference to which is made in the foregoing paragraphs. The Collector as well as the Chief Executive Officer are as such directed to ensure compliance of the order and act in accordance with section 14 of the Act and effect recovery of dues

¶51

by taking appropriate measures. It would be open for the Collector as well as the Chief Executive Officer to secure police protection for enforcement of the order. The Collector as well as the Chief Executive Officer are directed to ensure compliance of the directions and act in accordance with section 14 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two

¶52

months from today. With directions as aforesaid, writ petitions stand disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands

¶54

disposed of.

¶55

( A. M. BADAR ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb

Nashik Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nashik Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Shree Ganesh Goods Transport Company Thr Proprietor Vs Mah. State Warehouse Corporation Thr M.D./Chairman and Ors.

M/S Jai Shivshankar Sah Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Sheshnagar Dist Nanded Thr I/C Managing Director Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhimashankar Eknath Garud Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Commissioner Municipal Corporation , Latur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Umaji Ubale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Municipal Commissioner Latur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others