Dismissed

Shri. Chandrakant Jaysingh Supekar and Ors. v. the Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Karad, through Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2016WP/7292/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged notices issued under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, claiming inapplicability to Co-operative Banks. The Court rejected the contention relying on settled law and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Chandrakant Jaysingh Supekar and Ors. Vs the Karad… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

rpa 1/2 wp-7292-13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7292 OF 2013

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memorandam of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar’s orders.

¶5

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Mr. Vilas Baburao Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶6

CORAM : A.S. OKA AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

¶7

DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2016.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notices issued under Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002 (for short “the said Act”). The contention is that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to a Co-operative Bank under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The second contention of the petitioners is based on alleged non-compliance of the order dated 23^nd

¶10

rpa 2/2 wp-7292-13.doc

¶11

January, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.8353 of 2011.

¶12

2 As far as the first contention is concerned, the law is well settled in the case of Rama Steel Industries & Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2001¹ . The same contention has been negatived by the Division Bench. The decision of this Court in the case of Rama Steel Industries & Ors. (Supra) is final as of today. Hence, the first contention has no merit.

¶13

3 As far as the second contention is concerned, apart from the stand taken by the respondents that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge were complied with, the remedy available to the petitioner is completely different.

¶14

4 Hence, no case is made out for interference. Subject to what is observed above, Writ Petition is rejected.

¶15

2008 (1) Bombay C. R. 271

Shri. Chandrakant Jaysingh Supekar and Ors. v. the Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Karad, through Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Chandrakant Jaysingh Supekar and Ors. v. the Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Karad, through Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swati Siddhesh Padhye Andanr Vs Hon'Ble Chief Minister, Maharashtra through the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Rama Dashrath Hajam (Deceased through Lrs) Shama Rama Hajam

Mangesh Gangaram Bhalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Office of Hon'Ble Chief Minister

Shri Dakornath Jagannath Bakshi and Ors. Vs Shri Anil Narayan Joshi

Madhukar Deoman Patel and Ors. Vs Malegaon Municipal Corp. and Ors.

M/S. Y.T. Divadkar Vs Union of India through the General Manager and Ors.