Partly allowed

Mr. Rajesh Mahadev Shekatkar v. Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2016CAW/188/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the civil application, condoning a delay of 193 days, to restore a writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution. The court held the SARFAESI Act applies to the respondent bank based on precedents and dismissed the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition restored from the file and then dismissed. Civil application allowed. Rule returnable forthwith by consent.

Mr. Rajesh Mahadev Shekatkar Vs Dombivali Nagari… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

CAW 188 of 2016.sxw

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 188 OF 2016

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.5226 OF 2012

¶8

Rajesh Mahadev Shekatkar ...Applicant/Petitioner Vs. Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors. …Respondents

¶9

Mr.Vijay Killedar for Applicant / Petitioner Mr.Amit Borkar for Respondent No.1 Mr.N.P. Deshpande – AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2016

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The delay of 193 days caused in filing this civil application is

¶14

condoned. The order dated 9^th June, 2015 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to the file. Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted

¶17

2/3 CAW 188 of 2016.sxw

¶18

that by order dated 9.6.2015, this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the Petitioner for want of prosecution. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not aware of the order passed by this Court and was under an impression that the petition has been adjourned. He submits that after the bank took possession of one of the mortgage properties, after issuance of the notice, he came to know that the interim order is vacated. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he had filed his vakalatnama and then he was to argue the matter but since he was busy in some other Court, he could not argue the matter when it was called out. He has submitted that the provisions under the SARFAESI Act are not applicable to Respondent No.1 Co-operative Bank and the action taken by Respondent No.2 under the SARFAESI Act is illegal and is not sustainable in law.

¶19

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner at length. This Court in case of Khaja Industries vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2007 (6) MhLj 712] has upheld the validity of the Notification which was issued under section 5 (c) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. We are bound by the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Khaja Industries (supra.) . Apart from that, we are informed that the Bank has already taken possession of one of the mortgage

¶20

3/3 CAW 188 of 2016.sxw

¶21

properties situated at Sangli. The Petitioner, therefore, will have to file an application under section 17 of the Securitisation Act.

¶22

Since we have heard the Petitioner on merits, Writ Petition is dismissed

¶23

for the reasons stated hereinabove.

¶24

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

¶25

V.M. KANADE, J.

Mr. Rajesh Mahadev Shekatkar v. Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Rajesh Mahadev Shekatkar v. Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. 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

State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs M/S. Masumi Overseas Private Ltd. and Ors.

Aristocraft International Private Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises Co-Op Soc. Ltd. Vs the States of Maharshtra and 3 Others

M/S. Mrb Roadconst Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rupee Co-Op. Bank

Mr. Rajesh Mahadev Shekatkar Vs Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mr Bhagatsingh S/O Chandar Walmiki and 2 Ors. Vs Shree Siddhivinayak Coop Hsg Soc Ltd. and 16 Ors.