Partly allowed

Kshama Renukadas Vaidya and Another v. Authorized Officer, Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC7 Oct 2016RA/189/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application concerning a writ petition against IDBI Bank, the High Court modified an order directing applicants to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs with the court. Relying on an Apex Court judgment, the court directed instead that the amount be deposited with the Debt Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad. Previously deposited amounts are also to be transmitted there.

What did the court decide?

Deposition of Rs. 15,00,000 directed with Debt Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad instead of court; transmission of earlier deposits to the Tribunal.

Kshama Renukadas Vaidya and Another Vs Authorized… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 RA-189-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 189 OF 2016 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2858 OF 2015

¶5

Mrs. Kshama Renukadas Vaidya and others

¶6

...APPLICANTS

¶7

versus

¶8

Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd. and others

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. S.R.Deshpande, Advocate for applicants - original petitioners Mr. A.S. Pathak, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. B.V. Virdhe, AGP for respondent No. 5

¶11

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 7^th OCTOBER, 2016.

¶13

Order :-

¶14

Present review petition is filed by the applicants - original petitioners in respect of order dated 5^th August, 2016.

¶15

Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for applicantspetitioners submits that this court under order dated 5^th August, 2016 had directed the petitioners to deposit amount of Rs.15,00,000/(Rupees fifteen Lakhs) in addition to amount already deposited with the Bank. Learned counsel relying on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Axis Bank Vs. S.B. S. Organics Private Limited and another reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 2024 submits that condition of pre-deposit is not secured asset nor secured debt, pre-deposit has to be refunded to

¶16

2 RA-189-16

¶17

borrower unless already appropriated by the Bank with consent of depositors or any attachment in any proceedings under Section 13 of the Securtisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act or Rules. The applicants are directed to deposit said amount in the bank, earlier orders of depositing the amount were to the effect of deposit in the court.

¶18

Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for non applicant-banks states that amount to be deposited as per order of this court is without prejudice to rights of the parties. If applicants succeeds, bank at any time would refund the amount to the applicants-petitioners, huge amount is to be recovered by the bank from the applicants.

¶19

It is not necessary to dilate further in the matter in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Axis Bank (Supra). It is held by the Apex Court that pre-condition for entertaining appeal is not secured asset nor secured debt, pre-deposit has to be refunded to the borrower on disposal of appeal unless already appropriated by bank with consent of borrower.

¶20

In light of that, order directing the applicants to deposit amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen Laksh) with bank is modified to the extent that applicants shall deposit said amount as directed by this court under order dated 05-08-2016 with Debt Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad. It is stated earlier amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs is also deposited with Debt Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad. Amount of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs) already

¶21

3 RA-189-16

¶22

deposited in this court under order dated 12-03-2015 shall also be transmitted to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad. The amount as directed by this court under order dated 5^th August, 2016 shall be deposited with Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad within two weeks from today. Amount which would be deposited with Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad and also transmitted by this court shall be kept in fixed deposit in Nationalized Bank.

¶23

Review application is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Sd/-

¶25

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶26

MTK

Kshama Renukadas Vaidya and Another v. Authorized Officer, Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kshama Renukadas Vaidya and Another v. Authorized Officer, Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai and Others

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

M/S Vithal Agro Exports Gurme Farm, Thr. Prop. Vishnudas Vitthalrao Gurme Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Balasaheb Raghunath Haral Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Tatyasaheb Baburao Kotkar and Ors. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd., Mumbai through Its Manager Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S v.M.Matere Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vishnu Mahadev Matere Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shushrusha Heart Care Centre and Specialty Centre, Mumbai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another