Dismissed

Laxminarayan Girdharilalji Bhutada and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014WP/6112/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under the SARFAESI Act, holding it not maintainable as statutory remedies under the DRT Act were available, relying on a Supreme Court observation.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability; petitioners reserved right to approach DRT.

Laxminarayan Girdharilalji Bhutada and Ors. Vs the State… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

(wp 6112 OF 2014)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 6112 OF 2014

¶6

Laxminarayan S/o. Girdharilalji Bhutada and Ors.

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

¶12

Mr.P.N. Kalani for Petitioners

¶13

Mrs. Gauri Rao -AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr.Nikhil Rajani i/b. M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. for Respondent Nos.2 to 4

¶14

¶15

CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶16

DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2014

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for the Respondents regarding maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of challenging the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Our attention is invited to the judgment and order passed by the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. [(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110]. In paragraph 55 of the said judgment and order, it is observed as under:

¶19

“55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act

¶20

1/2

¶21

2 - (wp 6112 OF 2014)

¶22

and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumstances.'

¶23

In view of the specific observation made by the Apex Court, we are afraid, we will not be in a position to entertain this petition. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of on the ground that it is not maintainable, reserving the right of the Petitioners to approach the DRT. All contentions raised by the Petitioners in this petition are kept open.

¶24

Vaishali Tikam

¶25

2/2

Laxminarayan Girdharilalji Bhutada and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxminarayan Girdharilalji Bhutada and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Nashik and Ors.

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

Sanjay S/O. Chandrakant Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay S/O. Chandrakant Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aneesha Dutt Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shamiullah Habibullah Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaji K. K. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Farida Mohamed U. Shaikh through Its Poa Holder Mr. Mohd. Sadiq Shaikh Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.