Partly allowed

Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2014WP/5328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition challenging the pending status of a Securitisation Application before the District Magistrate, Solapur, the Court directed the DM to decide the application within 15 days and directed petitioner representatives to appear for the final order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Magistrate, Solapur to pass final order on Securitisation Application No. 8 of 2013 within 15 days from 16.06.2014.

Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the State of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 8-production-wp-5328-14

¶2

Ladda

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5328 of 2014.

¶5

Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd … Petitioner. V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

… Respondents.

¶8

Mr Bhushan Walimbe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 11^th June 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1. Not on board. Taken on Board.

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for

¶13

the first and second Respondents. Considering the limited grievance made in this petition, notice to the third Respondent is not necessary.

¶14

The Petitioner made an application being Securitisation Application No.8 of 2013 before the District Magistrate, Solapur by invoking Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short “the said Act”). The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the judgment and order dated 20th August, 2011 passed by this Court in Criminal PIL No.24 of 2011 (International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others). He submitted that the guidelines laid down by the said decision have not been followed. He pointed out that a direction of the Division Bench is

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

2 8-production-wp-5328-14

¶17

that such applications should be disposed of expeditiously and in any event, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the applications. He submits that though the application is filed on 5th March,2013, the same is still kept pending. The learned AGP has no instructions. We accept the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as of today no communication has been issued to the Petitioner in relation to any order passed on the said application.

¶18

The District Magistrate, Solapur will have to decide the said application in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of International Assets Reconstruction Co. Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others. We, therefore, dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

¶19

(a) We direct the authorized representative or authorized officer of the petitioner to remain present before the District Magistrate, Solapur on Monday, 16th June, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.;

¶20

(b) The authorized officer of the Petitioner shall produce an authenticated copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Solapur;

¶21

(c) The District Magistrate, Solapur shall pass final order on the Securitisation Application No. 8 of 2013 within a period of 15 days from 16th June, 2014;

¶22

(d) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the merits of the Application of the Petitioner;

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

3 8-production-wp-5328-14

¶25

(e) Learned District Magistrate, Solapur to act upon an

¶26

authenticated copy of this order.

¶27

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )