Remanded

Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd, Nanded v. Bhokar Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sang Ltd, Nanded

Bombay HC12 Jul 2016WP/3235/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed the lower court's order directing issuance of a No Dues Certificate as proceedings were pending. It granted the bank one fresh opportunity to file its reply and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 per matter on the bank.

What did the court decide?

Quashed orders to grant fresh opportunity to petitioner-bank to file reply, directed costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by petitioner.

Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd, Nanded Vs Bhokar Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sang Ltd, Nanded — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

916 & 917 sr. nos..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3235 OF 2015

¶5

NANDED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NANDED VERSUS BHOKAR TALUKA SAHAKARI KHAREDI VIKRI SANG LTD, NANDED

¶6

with

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3236 OF 2015

¶8

NANDED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NANDED VERSUS

¶9

UMARI TALUKA SAHAKARI KHAREDI VIKRI SANGH LTD, NANDED

¶10

… Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi Advocate for respondents: Mr. S.B. Ghatol.

¶11

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE :12TH JULY , 2016.

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

Present writ petitions are filed against the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad thereby rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners so also allowing the application Exh.15 filed by the present respondent seeking No Dues Certificate.

¶14

2] Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have only deposited the principal amount and have not deposited the interest amount. The petitioners had clarified in their say. However, as No Say Order was passed and the Court did not set aside the No Say Order, the say filed by the petitioners is not considered. The proceedings are still pending and in the midst of the proceedings, the

¶15

{2}

¶16

916 & 917 sr. nos..odt

¶17

Presiding Officer, DRT, has directed the petitioners to issue No Dues certificate to the respondent. Same is erroneous. Without receiving the entire dues, the No Dues certificate could not have been directed to be issued.

¶18

3] Mr. Ghatol, learned counsel for the respondents submits that ample opportunity was given to the petitioners to file say. The lawyer for the bank made a statement that he is not receiving any instructions from the bank and thereafter, the Court proceeded to pass No say order. The respondents have made payment of the entire amount including interest, charges and costs. The Presiding Officer, after having been convinced with the factual matrix, rightly passed the order directing the petitioners to issue NO Dues Certificate.

¶19

4] We have considered the submissions. It appears that the petitioners were granted ample opportunity to file say to the application at Exhibit 15, but did not file their say. The advocate for the petitioners made a statement that the bank was not giving instructions and documents to him to file the say to Exhibit 15. It is submitted that alongwith the application Exhibit 18, say to Exhibit 15 was also filed. Considering the said aspect, the Presiding Officer could have taken a liberal approach by accepting the say. It could have imposed certain conditions upon the petitioners by way of costs or otherwise.

¶20

5] The proceedings, it appears, are pending and the impugned order is passed. It would have been appropriate if the factual aspects would

¶21

{3}

¶22

916 & 917 sr. nos..odt

¶23

have been considered. Only on the ground that no say has been filed by the petitioners/bank to the application at Exhibit 15, the impugned orders have been passed. Considering the nature of dispute, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioners/bank, however, the petitioners also deserve to be mulct with costs.

¶24

6] In the result, we pass the following order :-

¶25

[a] The impugned orders passed below Exhibits 15 and 18 in M.A. No. 38 of 2013, so also, the orders below Exhibit 18 and 21 in S.A. No. 75 of 2013, are quashed and set aside.

¶26

[b] The say filed by the petitioners to the application filed by the respondents for issuing No Dues Certificate shall be read and recorded, on condition that the petitioners pay costs of Rs. 10,000/in each matter, to the present respondents, within a period of 4 weeks from today.

¶27

[c] The parties shall appear on the date, which is already fixed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶28

[d] Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶29

[K.K. SONAWANE] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE JUDGE.

¶30

grt/-

Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd, Nanded v. Bhokar Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sang Ltd, Nanded

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd, Nanded v. Bhokar Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sang Ltd, Nanded

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

Shaobha Ramesh Bankar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Nirmala Mukund Hiwrale Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shobha Walmik More Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Rashtriya Aunusuchi Jati Jamati Aplasankhanyank Gramin Vikash Mandals Amar Industries, Aurangabad Vs Union of India and Others

Suregaon Vikas Ba Bachav Kruti Sammitti, Ahmednagar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammed Naseruddin Siddiqui Mohammed Nizamuddin Siddiqui and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others