Disposed

M/S. Aditi Automobiles and Anr. v. Greater Bombay Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2020WP/2955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Order on interim applications regarding frozen bank accounts and one-time settlement opportunity. Court directed de-freezing of specific accounts with meager balances to enable business. Bank directed to consider one-time settlement request within two weeks. No view expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Intermediate relief granted: de-freezing of certain frozen accounts for six months and order for one-time settlement consideration within two weeks.

M/S. Aditi Automobiles and Anr. vs Greater Bombay… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

5. civil wp 3909-16 wp st 9902-16 cawst 22233-16.doc

¶2

R.M. AMBERKAR

¶3

(Private Secretary)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3909 OF 2016 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3909 OF 2016

¶6

Sumedha Sanjay Joshi .. Petitioner Vs

¶7

Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 9902 OF 2016 WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 22233 OF 2016

¶11

M/s. Aditi Automobiles & Ors. .. Petitioners

¶12

¶13

Greater Bombay Co-op Bank Ltd & Ors. .. Respondents

¶14

Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar for the Petitioner / Interim Application

¶15

Mr. S.R. Bhalekar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3

¶16

Mr. A.B. Kadam, AGP for Respondent No. 2 in WP 3909/16

¶17

Mr. P.P. Pujari, AGP for Respondent No. 2 in WP (st) 9902/16

¶18

Mr. Anil Govind Ghige Respondent in WPST 9902/16 present

¶19

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2020.

¶20

P.C.:

¶21

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶22

2. Interim Application No. 1/2020 in Writ Petition No. 3909

¶23

of 2016 is taken on board.

¶24

1 of 5

¶25

5. civil wp 3909-16 wp st 9902-16 cawst 22233-16.doc

¶26

3. With the aid of learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the records of the case. Mr. Dhakephalkar points out that as against the original outstanding amount shown in the recovery certificate i.e Rs. 57 Lacs (approx), the petitioners in these petitions have shown their bonafides by making payment of Rs. 45 Lacs to respondent No. 1 - bank and further amount of Rs. 15 Lacs which has been deposited in this Court.

¶27

4. Mr. Dhakephalkar has drawn my attention to Exh D at Page 26 of IA 1/20 filed by the petitioner. Exh. D gives a list of nine bank accounts held by the petitioner, her brother - Anil Govind Ghige and certain concern - partnership firm. He submits that respondent No. 1 - bank has written to the banks in which these nine accounts have been held and have frozen the operation of the said accounts. Out of these nine accounts, accounts at Sr. Nos. 1, 3 and 9 prima facie shows a balance of Rs. 8,19,319.66, Rs. 53,077.00 and Rs. 1,48,020.56 respectively. Remaining six accounts show a very meager balance. On a query being put to Mr. Bhalekar with respect to the reliefs claimed in interim application for

¶28

2 of 5

¶29

5. civil wp 3909-16 wp st 9902-16 cawst 22233-16.doc

¶30

de-freezing of the said accounts, Mr. Bhalekar has fairly submitted that in so far as account numbers at Sr. Nos. 1, 3 and 9 are concerned, the same ought not to be de-freezed at this juncture and respondent No.1 - bank be allowed to file its affidavit in reply to oppose the application and place on record the exact status of the outstanding recovery in respect of the petitioner. This stand of Mr. Bhalekar prima facie appears to be very fair and is appreciated by the Court. In so far as the balance six accounts are concerned, at this stage, considering the meager balances in the said accounts, it will not be appropriate to keep them frozen because the petitioner, her brother and their concern - partnership firm are unable to do any business due to de-

¶31

freezing of the said accounts. Hence, at this ad-interim stage, I am inclined to direct respondent No.1 bank to intimate the concerned banks in which the accounts at Sr Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are concerned directing them to defreeze the said accounts so as to enable the petitioners to operate the same and carry on their business.

¶32

3 of 5

¶33

5. civil wp 3909-16 wp st 9902-16 cawst 22233-16.doc

¶34

5. Both the learned counsel have drawn my attention to the order dated 7.3.2019 which records that in the event if the petitioners desire to approach respondent No.1 - bank with a one time settlement, the petitioners were directed to do the same within a period of two weeks therefrom. Be that as it may, since passing of the above order, much time has passed. Today the request for approaching the respondent No. 1 - bank has been renewed afresh by Mr. Dhakephalkar, although it being done across the bar. Considering that the petitioners have adequately shown their bonafides in making substantial payment against the outstanding amount i.e Rs. 40 Lacs directly with respondent No. 1 - bank and Rs. 15 Lacs in this Court, the petitioners

¶35

deserve to be given another opportunity to approach respondent No. 1 bank with an offer for one time settlement in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶36

6. Respondent No.1 - bank is also directed to consider the request of the petitioners of one time settlement in accordance with law and guidelines in that respect. Needles to state that this Court has not expressed any view on the

¶37

4 of 5

¶38

5. civil wp 3909-16 wp st 9902-16 cawst 22233-16.doc

¶39

merits of the case.

¶40

7. Mr. Dhakephalkar submits that the petitioner shall

¶41

make an endeavor to make this application within a period of two weeks from today. Mr. Bhalekar submits that respondent No.1 - bank shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two weeks after its receipt and if required, will call upon the petitioners for seeking clarification.

¶42

8. In so far the IA 1/2020 is concerned, Mr. Bhalekar undertakes to file affidavit in reply of respondent No. 1 - bank within a period of two weeks from today.

¶43

9. S.O to 24th April, 2020.

¶44

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶45

Digitally signed by Ravindra Ravindra M. Amberkar M. Date: Amberkar 2020.02.21 17:06:31 +0530

¶46

5 of 5

M/S. Aditi Automobiles and Anr. v. Greater Bombay Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Aditi Automobiles and Anr. v. Greater Bombay Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dayashankar Bhagwantiprasad Pandey vs Premlal Rajaram Vishwakarma

Suman Ankush Todkar vs the Executive Engineer and Ors.

Khurshid Shaikh Nanhu (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Shri. Altaf Nanhumiyan Shaikh vs Sayyed Nawab Sayyed Ahmad (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Suriya Rafique Khan and Ors.

M/S. Accord Developers and Partnership Firm vs Shri Narayan Maruti Falke and Ors.

Ramchandra @Rama Bhagwan Shingan Since Deceased Godabai R. Shingan and Ors. vs the Executive Engineer and Ors.

Babasaheb Baburao Halkar vs the Executive Engineer and Ors.