Disposed

Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Beed through Authorized Officer v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC8 Feb 2019WP/1806/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition raising a delay in SARFAESI Act proceedings. It directed the respondent District Magistrate to take expeditious steps to conclude the proceedings within 10 weeks and provide an opportunity of hearing to parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps expeditiously and provide an opportunity of hearing to parties within 10 weeks.

Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Beed through… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 ) wp1806.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1806 OF 2019 WITH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1808 OF 2019

¶5

POORNAWADI NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD BEED THROUGH
AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

Mr.Milind M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the
petitioner

¶9

Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, AGP for the respondents/State

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :08.02.2019

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

2.As the limited grievance is raised in the
petition, we are of the opinion that the petition
can be disposed of at the admission stage.

¶14

3.It may not be necessary for us to refer the
facts in details. Suffice to say that the petitioner
is Co-operative bank and there were certain
proceedings initiated by the petitioner taking
recourse to SARFACIE Act. The proceeding reached at

¶15

the stage of initiation action by respondent NO.2 as
per the provision of the said Act.

¶16

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner invited
our attention to the copy of the proceedings
initiated at the instance of the petitioner placed
on record at page No.20 and this application under
Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002. The application is supported by
the affidavit and the annextures.

¶17

5.Then learned counsel invited our attention
to the application dated 14.12.2010. Copy of the
same is placed on record at Exh.D and the latest
application is submitted on 22.01.2019. It seems
that on 20/12/2018 the District Magistrate issued
notice. Learned counsel submits that as there is
delay and the Act specified stipulation of period
for respondent No.2 further delay in proceeding
would be futile exercise. As such respondent No.2 be
directed to take steps expeditiously without further
delay.

¶18

3.It seems that though the District

¶19

( 3 ) wp1806.19

¶20

Magistrate issued notice on 20.12.2018 and called
upon parties on 08.01.2019, the matter is pending
before the authority without further progress and
the learned counsel was justified in submitting that
further delay in the matter would then make
stipulation of period as futile exercise.

¶21

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that as per the provision of Act and in
view of the judgment at Principal Seat reported in
2007 BCR 783 respondent No.2 District Magistrate is
not obliged to issue notice and offered an
opportunity of hearing as the notices are already
issued. Keeping this contention open for the
authorities, if the petitioner raises objection to
that effect, we pass following order:

¶22

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of
with direction to respondent No.2 to take
appropriate steps expeditiously in the proceedings
initiated at the instance of the petitioner, needles
to state, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the
parties as the notices are already issued to the
parties, as early as possible and not later than 10
weeks.

¶23

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.]

¶24

VishalK/ wp1806.19

Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Beed through Authorized Officer v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Beed through Authorized Officer v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Sangita Dharamsing Ade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amin Raju Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sushila Purushottam Arsul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kamalkishor Motiram Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Kachru Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Nivrutti Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others