Disposed

Canara Bank v. M/S Shah Thakure and Sons and 3 Others

Bombay HC11 Jul 2016WP/1685/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a two-day extension for the petitioner to approach the DRAT for interim relief, while restraining the Recovery Officer from releasing deposited funds, noting the petition was not decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Granting two days for the petitioner to approach DRAT for interim relief and restraining the Recovery Officer from releasing deposited funds during that period.

Canara Bank Vs M/S Shah Thakure and Sons and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

skc

36-WPL-1370-16.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1370 OF 2016

Canara Bank

.. Petitioner

versus

M/s. Shah Thakure and Sons & Ors. .. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Sanjay Jain with Ms Sapana Rachure for Petitioner. Mr. Uday Warunjikar with Minesh Shah, G. C. Mohanty i/b. M/s. Mohanty & Ass. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

¶12

CORAM: V. M. KANADE AND M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 11 JULY 2016

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1] Application is made for seeking extension of statement which is made by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 on 8 July 2016 for another two days.

¶15

2] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already preferred appeal before the DRAT and the same is kept for hearing on 18 July 2016. He submitted that the order was passed on 8 July 2016 whereby this court was pleased to record the statement of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 that they will not take any steps till 11 July 2016. He submitted that the said statement may be continued so that the petitioner will get an opportunity to apply for interim relief before the DRAT.

¶16

3] Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 submitted that this petition has become infructuous since the petitioner has moved the DRAT on 5 July 2016. No interim relief

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

skc 2 36-WPL-1370-16.doc

¶19

was granted in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that interim order passed by the DRT was vacated on 7 May 2016 and in order to enable the petitioner to approach the DRAT interim protection was granted. However, since the Chairman of the DRAT was not available, the petitioner filed this petition. There is much substance in the submission made by Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 that this petition has become infructuous since the petitioner has already moved the DRAT. The record of the DRAT does not show that the interim order was passed by the DRAT on 5 July 2016. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner they could not press for interim orders since the papers and proceedings were lost in transit.

¶20

4] Since there is some ambiguity as to whether in fact application for interim relief was pressed or not, as a last chance, we give two days time to the petitioner to apply for interim relief before the DRAT. Till that time, the Recovery Officer shall not release the amount which is lying deposited. We make it clear that this order has been passed in order to enable the petitioner to approach the DRAT. We have not passed this order on merits and the contention of the respondents are kept open that DRAT shall not be influenced by this order and may pass independent orders on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall give 24 hours written notice before moving the DRAT. No further extension will be granted.

¶21

5] The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶23

chandka

¶24

2 of 2

Canara Bank v. M/S Shah Thakure and Sons and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Shah Thakure and Sons and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Anthony Dcunha and 8 Ors. Vs Lydia Agnes Rodrigues and 6 Ors.

Aejaz Ahmed and Anr. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company and Anr.

Shri. Bhagwan Rangnathrao Wanjare Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs D.D.Raut and Snehalata D Raut and 6 Ors(Proposed Respondent)

Harvestdeal Securities Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary to Govt. and Ors. Vs Shri. Salahuddin Hisamoddin Shaikh