A writ petition challenging an appellate tribunal order requiring a debtor to deposit 50% of a debt recovery claim. The High Court held that reasons were apparent from the record and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed without any direction being altered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/6
(WP 12 of 2016)
vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 12 OF 2016
Homi Faramroz Patrawala ….Petitioner (Org. Defendant No.1) Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. ….Respondents (Respondent no.1 Org. Applicant Respondent Nos.2 to 4) Org.Defendant Nos.2 to 4)
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. A.P. Fanibanda for Petitioner
None for the Respondents
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & M.S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 8, 2016
P.C. :
No.1 herein before the DRT, has challenged an order passed by the
DRAT dated 6th November, 2015, asking the Petitioner to deposit 50%
2/6
(WP 12 of 2016)
of the principal amount with the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal in two equal installments within a period of six weeks.
has observed that the Appellant – Petitioner herein should deposit Rs.1.30 Crores within a period of six weeks in two equal installments. Being aggrieved by the said order of not granting the total waiver of deposit, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition.
3/6
(WP 12 of 2016)
assigned and have merely said that on the submissions made by both the parties, the DRAT came to a conclusion that the the amount to be deposited by the Appellant. He submitted that the allegation against the Petitioner was that he dishonestly credited an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- in his account. It is submitted that, in fact, Original Defendant No.2 had admitted that neither the Petitioner / Original Defendant No.1, nor the Bank Officials were responsible when the signatures of Defendant Nos.3 and 4 were forged. He submitted that, therefore, even the allegation that the amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was deposited to his account, can be said to be incorrect.
“(ii) The Defendant No.1 is found to be closely involved in all the fraudulent transactions. He dishonestly filled up Application Form for obtaining two Bankers Cheque from NRE account of the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4.
4/6
(WP 12 of 2016)
(iii) The Defendant No.1 dishonestly credited an
amount of Rs.35.00 lacs in his accounts as aforesaid and misappropriated the same.
(iv) The Defendant no.1 made cash withdrawals from the Bank. The writing on the cheques used for cash withdrawals with forged signatures of the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 viz. Mr. Hussainali Sultanali Nensey and Mrs. Nissa Hussainali Nensey is found to be that of the Defendant No.1.”
The DRT has considered these allegations from the material which was brought on record and in paragraphs 20 and 21, has considered the involvement and liability of the Petitioner - Defendant No.1, arising from the said transaction.
5/6
(WP 12 of 2016)
demand loans and proceeds of premature liquidation proceedings were withdrawn. It has also observed that behind these cheques, endorsement of Defendant No.1 is made by putting his signature. The DRT has further observed that the Defendant No.1 had not specifically and categorically denied his signatures on overleaf of the cheques. Finally, the DRT has made the following observations:
signatures on the overleaf of the aforesaid cheques are of Defendant No.1 which means that he is the beneficiary. Such a person can surely be said to be involved in the illegal act of getting monies of Defendant Nos.3 and 4 from the Bank.
6/6
(WP 12 of 2016)
the monies of Defendant Nos.3 and 4 from the Applicant Bank. The DRT, therefore, came to the conclusion that both the Defendant Nos.1 (Petitioner herein) and Defendant No.2 are liable to pay the amount of the Bank. Therefore, the contention of Shri Mayur Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner that only the amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was deposited by the Petitioner in his account and he is liable to that extent, cannot be accepted.
Sd/Sd/- M.S. SONAK, J. V.M. KANADE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the DRAT order directing deposit of 50% principal amount required reasons and thus liable to be set aside?
Homi Faramroz Patrawala
State Bank of India
Other Respondents
V. M. KANADE
M.S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
