Dismissed

Rajan Bhalchandra Datar v. the Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited

Bombay HC19 Mar 2014WP/5962/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for one-time settlement benefits from the Saraswat Co-operative Bank, the High Court of Bombay declined to entertain the petition because the petitioner had not applied to the bank for such benefits before filing. The petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition was rejected and declined to be entertained as no application for one-time settlement was made to the Bank.

Rajan Bhalchandra Datar Vs the Saraswat Co-Operative… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp5962

¶2

cpm

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO .

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5962 OF 2013

¶5

Rajan Bhalchandra Datar ..Petitioner.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. ..Respondents.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court’s or Judge’s orders

¶10

Shri Rafiq Dada, Senior Counsel a/w Shri A.A. Kumbhkoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukul Taly & Ms. Swati Deshpande i/by S.Mahomedbhai & Co. for the Petitioner.

¶11

Shri Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate i/by Bhupesh V. Sawant for Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : MARCH 19, 2014.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The substantive prayer (a) of this Petition reads thus:

¶15

“this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of a Mandamus requiring the Respondent Bank in terms of the Reserve Bank of India circulars to offer and accept one time settlement of the Bank's claim against the Petitioner pertaining to Account No. 88 on the basis/formulation of the One Time

1 of 2

wp5962

cpm

Settlement implemented in the case of M/s. Starlite Components Pvt. Ltd. without discrimination and/or discretion without prejudice to the Petitioner's contention about the legality of the amalgamation of the erstwhile Nasik Peoples' Co-operative Bank with the Respondent Bank.”

¶20

Admittedly, there is no averment made in the Petition that at any time before filing of the Petition, the Petitioner applied to the RespondentBank for grant of benefit under one time settlement scheme. The Petitioner is relying upon the prayers made in Civil Application No. 92 of 2013 in the pending Letter Patents Appeal.

¶21

We have perused the said prayers. The prayer was for directing the Respondent Bank to accept the proposal of one time settlement amount in full and final settlement of the claim of the Respondent.

¶22

The Petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a writ of Mandamus. The Petitioner has not even applied to the Petitioner Bank for grant of benefit of one time Settlement Scheme. We, therefore, decline to entertain the Petition and the Petition is therefore rejected.

¶23

2 of 2

Rajan Bhalchandra Datar v. the Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Bhalchandra Datar v. the Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ramesh Pandurang Kute and Ors. Vs Mrs. Jayashree Suresh Dange

Mrunali Virendra Lonare Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Lt. Col. v. M. Karve Vs State of Maharashtra through Revenue and Forests Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Salim Mohammed Shaikh, through Power of Attorney, Shri. Wasim Ebrahim Sayyad Vs the Collector of Satara and Ors.

Sister Tehzeeb Q. Sayyad Vs State of Mahaashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra (Notice to Be Served Upon Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Anr. Vs Chandrakant P. Nanekar