Disposed

Kishor Rambhau Jugade and Others v. the Authorized Officer,the Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Others

Bombay HC27 Jan 2021WP/504/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench held that uncertainty over borrower status does not preclude challenging a public auction notice. The court clarified that applicants have time to seek interim relief from the Debt Recovery Tribunal even if the auction proceeds, as substantial amounts must be deposited post-auction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no interim relief granted to stay auction.

Kishor Rambhau Jugade and Others Vs the Authorized… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

2701wp504.21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.504 OF 2021

¶5

Kishor Rambhau Jugade and others ... Petitioners - Versus -

¶6

The Authorised Officer, The Yavatmal Urban Cooperative Bank Limited and others

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Shri M.P. Naidu, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶9

Shri A.H. Lohiya, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 27 JANUARY 2021

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The Petitioners have challenged the public auction notice issued by the Respondent No.1 Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The first and obvious question that arises is of alternate remedy available to the

¶14

2 2701wp504.21

¶15

Petitioners before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The contention of Shri Naidu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that the Petitioners are neither borrowers nor guarantors has been repelled by Shri Lohiya, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Bank, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others¹

¶16

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners then submits that the auction is scheduled on 29 January 2021 and if the Petitioners approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, their application will become infructuous.

¶17

This apprehension is unwarranted. The scheme of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder postulates deposit of 25% of the amount by the successful bidder at the time of auction and remaining 75% of the amount thereafter within a stipulated period. Therefore, the Petitioners have sufficient time to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, we make it clear that in case the Petitioners approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within a period of one week and auction does take place, the result of the auction shall be subject to the application that the Petitioners will file before the Recovery Debt Tribunal. The request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank that the Petitioners should be directed to deposit some amount is left

¶18

1 2010 LawSuit (SC) 518

¶19

3 2701wp504.21

¶20

open to be agitated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶22

khj

¶23

Digitally signed by Kamal Kamal Jeswani Date: 2021.01.28 Jeswani 15:30:30 +0530

Kishor Rambhau Jugade and Others v. the Authorized Officer,the Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Rambhau Jugade and Others v. the Authorized Officer,the Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Others

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

M/S. Suprabhat Family Restaurant and Saoji Bhojnalay, Nagpur Thr. Sudarshan S. Lohkarre and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Others

Ku. Alisha D/O Mahendra Pinjarkar and Another Vs Research Officer and Member Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee Amravati and Another

Nandgaon Khandeshwar Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri Samiti Ltd. Thr. Presi. Vijay v. Patekar Vs District Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Amravati and Another

Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Mumbai Vs Bhatia Coal Washeries Ltd. Indore

Ms. Pradnya Dnyaneshwar Patil Vs the District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Wardha and Others

Sublime Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur through Director Shri Aavesh S/O Navalkishor Zunzunwala Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mumbai