Disposed

Surajit Chandra Baruah v. Board of Directors of State Bank of India

Bombay HC7 Jul 2014WP/35/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of writ petitions filed as quia timet actions where petitioners apprehended becoming willful defaulters. The court held that since DRT/DRAT have jurisdiction, entertaining these issues in writ petition was unnecessary at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions and associated notices of motions were disposed of as not necessary to entertain at this stage given DRT/DRAT jurisdiction.

Surajit Chandra Baruah Vs Board of Directors of State… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp35-14++

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.35 OF 2014

¶6

Surajit Chandra Baruah V/s. Board of Directors of State Bank of India & Ors.

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2867 OF 2013 AND WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2868 OF 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.389 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.392 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.396 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.397 OF 2014

¶10

Indira Baruah V/s.

¶11

Board of Directors of State Bank of India & Ors.

¶12

..Petitioner.

¶13

..Respondents.

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.172 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.386 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.387 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.390 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.395 OF 2014 AND WRIT PETITION NO.275 OF 2014

¶15

Vijay Kashyap V/s.

¶16

..Petitioner.

¶17

Board of Directors of State Bank of India & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.179 OF 2014

¶19

1/4

¶20

wp35-14++

¶21

Smt. Susheela w/o. U.K. Nambiar V/s.

¶22

Board of Directors of State Bank of India & Ors.

¶23

..Petitioner.

¶24

..Respondents.

¶25

Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara with Mr. Nishant Sangle for the petitioner in WP No.35/14 & 179/14

¶26

Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara with Ms. Rohini Amin for the petitioner in WPL No.2867/13, 2868/13 and i/b. Ms. Sophia Pinto in WP No.172/14 & WP No.275/14.

¶27

Mr. Satish Upadhyay i/b. M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP No.35/14.

¶28

Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain i/b. Lalit Kumar Jain & Co. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in WPL No.2867/14, 2868/14 & 275/14.

¶29

Ms. Amita Joshi for respondent No.4 in WP No.179/14.

¶30

Smt. V.M. Dongare for respondent Nos., 7, 8 & 10 in WP No.179/14.

¶31

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶32

DATED : 7TH JULY, 2014

¶33

P.C. :-

¶34

These writ petitions are filed as a quia timet action. The petitioner apprehends that the respondents will declare them to be willful defaulters.

¶35

Mr.Nedumpara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶36

the petitioner himself submits that the DRT / DRAT have jurisdiction to consider the issue as to whether or not they can be declared willful

¶37

2/4

¶38

wp35-14++

¶39

defaulters and also as to whether the 'master circular' is contrary to law or not.

¶40

As it is the petitioner's own case that the DRT / DRAT have jurisdiction, there is no warrant for entertaining the issues raised herein at this stage. Needless to add that in the event of the DRT / DRAT holding that they have no jurisdiction to entertain such a case, the petitioner can always challenge the same by filing appeals or by filing fresh writ petitions also.

¶41

In this view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to direct the assignee of the State Bank of India to be impleaded. The assignee would otherwise undoubtedly be entitled to be heard in the matter. However, this issue is kept open in case the petitioner adopts any other proceedings.

¶42

Mr.Nedumpara states that he seeks the opinion of this Court on the issue of jurisdiction. We are not even sure that we are entitled to express such an opinion. In any event, in view of the petitioner's own stand, it is not necessary for us to do so in these writ petitions at this stage.

¶43

It is not possible for us to speculate as to the nature of order that may be passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the event

¶44

3/4

¶45

wp35-14++

¶46

an application under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) being made. Even regarding the same, it is always open to the petitioner to make any application before the Metropolitan Magistrate so as to challenge the order in the event of the same being adverse to the petitioner.

¶47

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶48

As the writ petitions are disposed of, the Notice of Motions are also accordingly disposed of.

¶49

4/4

Surajit Chandra Baruah v. Board of Directors of State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajit Chandra Baruah v. Board of Directors of State Bank of India

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

Reshmiben Shantilal Shah Vs Chief Officer Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board and Ors.

Chipping and Painting Employers Association Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shrinivas Ramchandra Kulkarni and 2 Ors.

Jayesh Narain Bajaj and Vinita Narain Bajaj Vs Rammurti L. Goyal and 2 Ors.

M/S.Shahade Athavle Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorised Officer and 4 Ors.

Vijay Kashyap Vs the Board of Directors of State Bank of India and Others

Vijay Kashyap Vs the Board of Directors of State Bank of India and 7 Ors.