Disposed

Shri. Sandip Dhanpal Rajoba and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Mumbai, through Administrator and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Nov 2019PIL/134/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposition of two PILs challenging the sale of a sugar factory by private treaty by the Maharashtra State Co-Op Bank. The court held that since Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act grants liberty to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the PILs were not maintainable and were disposed of, directing petitioners to approach the DRT.

What did the court decide?

PILs disposed of; petitioners directed to approach the competent Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Shri. Sandip Dhanpal Rajoba and Ors. Vs Maharashtra… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

5-PIL-130-2013.DOC

¶2

jsn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.130 OF 2013

¶5

Shri Sarjerao Yeshwant Bhise & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Maharashtra State Co-Op Bank & Ors. …Respondents WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.134 OF 2013 Shri Sandip Dhanpal Rajoba & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Maharashtra State Co-Op Bank & Ors. …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Surel Shah, for Petitioner in PIL No.130 of 2013. Mr. Amit Sale, for Petitioner in PIL No.134 of 2013. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, for Respondent No.2. Mr. B.V.Samant, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 5. Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, for Respondent No.6.

¶7

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATED: 5TH NOVEMBER 2019

¶8

PC:-

¶9

These two Petitions styled as a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) have been filed questioning the sale of a sugar factory by private treaty.

¶10

The transaction is between Respondent Nos.1 and 6 for sale of the second Respondent’s sugar factory by private treaty. The tender notice dated 17th June, 2013 and the consequent sale thereto has been challenged on several grounds.

¶11

1/2

¶12

5-PIL-130-2013.DOC

¶13

It is conceded that there was a Public Interest Litigation brought challenging a similar sale. That PIL Petition was placed before a Division Bench of this Court and came to be withdrawn with liberty to avail the alternate remedy. The order to that effect is passed in PIL No.43 of 2010.

¶14

We are of the opinion that in such matters the PIL is not a remedy for the aggrieved parties. Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (“SARFAESI Act”) is couched in widest terms. It gives liberty to virtually everybody connected with the sugar factory and affected by the sale in question to move the DRT.

¶15

In this case competent DRT was moved in Securitisation Application No.39 of 2010. That securitisation application has also been disposed of by the Tribunal. The order to that effect was passed on 26th June, 2013. To our mind therefore, these Public Interest Litigations cannot be entertained and the Petitioners therein can move the competent DRT in the event they are aggrieved to by the sale or any steps consequent thereto.

¶16

The Public Interest Litigations are accordingly disposed of.

¶17

( R. I. CHAGLA, J. ) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶18

2/2

Shri. Sandip Dhanpal Rajoba and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Mumbai, through Administrator and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sandip Dhanpal Rajoba and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Mumbai, through Administrator and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Pandurang Ghadigaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjiv Chimbulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jagannath Narsimal Naidu Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Vijay Jagganath Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Hardas Hazarimal Tharwai Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Ors.

Nilesh Ramji Machhi and Ors. Vs Harishwar Harishchandra Mistry and Ors.

Mr. Satish Sakharam Agashe Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Water Resources and Ors.

Shri. Narsinha Ganpatrao Nikam Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Chaugule Savita Sajaykumar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Vinay Hukumchand Kothari Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Purva Siddharth Ingle Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Red Crescent Society of Mumbai Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. and Shaikh Abdul Salam Maikumiya and Another (Applicants)

Shri. Sarjerao Yashwant Bhise and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai and Ors.

Jawaharlal Sitaram Agarwal(Deceased) Vs Advocate Mahes D. Menghrajani and Ors.