Dismissed

M/S. Mangesh Filteration, through Directors and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Finance Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2014WP/4411/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a property auction due to dissatisfaction with the upset price and seeking one-time settlement. Court dismissed the petition as petitioners were liable but unable to pay, making the settlement prayer inexecutable.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the writ petition on the ground that petitioners were unable to pay the demanded amount, precluding consideration of one-time settlement.

M/S. Mangesh Filteration, through Directors and Anr. Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

wp-4411,13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4411 OF 2013

¶5

M/s. Mangesh Filtrations and Others. .. Petitioners Vs Maharashtra State Finance Corporation and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Anant Vadgaonkar for the Petitioners. Ms. Tejasvi Dalvi i/by Mrs. Sharmila S. Ranade for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A,A. SAYED, JJ DATE : 3RD MARCH 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

The challenge in this Petition is to the notice of auction published by the first Respondent the Maharashtra State Finance Corporation in a daily newspaper in February 2013. The Petitioners are the borrowers of the first Respondent. As the amount due and payable by the Petitioner was not paid, the property of the Petitioner was put to auction. There are various challenges in this Petition. The first challenge is on the ground that the property which is worth more than Rs.6 crores has been sold at the paltry sum of Rs.66 lacs. The second contention is that the Application of the Petitioner for one time settlement ought to have been considered.

¶10

ash 2 wp-4411,13

¶11

An affidavitinreply dated 8^th August 2013 has been filed by the first Respondent by Shri Pratap A. Gaikwad, the Assistant Manager (Law) and authorized officer of the first Respondent. In Paragraph 6 of the said affidavitinreply, it is stated that the Petitioners are free to bring an offer within a period of three weeks along with 25% of the amount offered as down payment.

¶12

There is a rejoinder filed by the first Petitioner dealing with the said reply in which the first Petitioner has expressed its inability to accept the suggestion of the first Respondent in the affidavitinreply.

¶13

Even according to the case of the Petitioners, they are liable to pay an amount of Rs.66 lacs to the first Respondent. However, they are disputing the rate of interest charged by the first Respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners on instructions states that, as of today, the Petitioners are not in a position to pay the amount due and payable to the first Respondent.

¶14

Thus, this is a case where the Petitioners are admittedly liable to pay the amount due and payable to the first Respondent. The Petitioners are not in a position to pay any amount as of today. The grievance of the Petitioners was as regards the upset price fixed in the auction. The Petitioners were unable either to bring any better offer or

¶15

ash 3 wp-4411,13

¶16

pay the amount demanded as down payment. The learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent states that the first Respondent has not received any bids.

¶17

The Petitioners are not in a position to pay any amount, and therefore, the prayer clause (b) as regards the proposal for one time settlement cannot be considered. Hence, there is no merit in the Petition and the same is rejected.

M/S. Mangesh Filteration, through Directors and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Finance Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mangesh Filteration, through Directors and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Finance Corporation 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

M/S. Hazel Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Dept of Legal Affairs) and Ors.

Devendra Gopinand Ughade Vs Vijaya Devendra Ughade

Mr. Arun Baburao Paritekar Vs Mr. Baburao Masoji Paritekar and Ors.

Mr. Arun Baburao Paritekar Vs Mr. Baburao Masoji Paritekar and Ors.

Shri Siddha Sarana Sangh, Machnur and Ors. Vs Suresh Sadashiv More and Others.