Allowed

Sangli Urban Co. Op Bank Ltd., Sangli through Its Recovery Officer v. Surana Builders and Developers Surana Sadan Ambejogai Thorugh Its Proprietor and Others

Bombay HC15 Feb 2022CA/1850/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application filed by a cooperative bank to be impleaded as a party in an underlying writ petition. The court directed the bank to be added as respondent No. 7 to ensure it is heard regarding its first charge on the suit property.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant impleaded as Respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition No. 10712 of 2021.

Sangli Urban Co. Op Bank Ltd., Sangli through Its… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

938-CA-1850-22.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1850 OF 2022

¶5

IN WRIT PETITION NO.10712 OF 2021

¶6

SANGLI URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD. SANGLI
THROUGH ITS RECOVERY OFFICER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SURANA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETORSANJAY LALCHANDJI SURANA AND OTHERS

¶9

Mr. Arvind R. Joshi, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3-State

¶10

Mr. Yashwant P. Jadhav, Advocate h/for Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for
Petitioner (in WP/10712/2021)

¶11

Mr. Kunal Kale, Advocate holding for Mr. Devang R. Deshmukh,
Advocate for Respondent No.6 (Respondent No. 4 in WP/10712/2021)
Mr. Nitin N. Jagdale, Advocate for Respondents No.7 and 8
(Respondents No. 5 and 6 in WP/10712/2021)

¶12

CORAM :A. S. GADKARI AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE :15-02-2022

¶13

P. C. :-

¶14

1. This is an application for intervention filed by applicant- Sangli

¶15

Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch at Parbhani.

¶16

2. It is the contention of the applicant that, they had advanced loan

¶17

approximately to the tune of Rs.10 Crores to the respondent No. 7 in

¶18

the present application (respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition) i.e.
Ambejogai Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (in short, ‘Sugar
Factory’). After getting a Recovery Certificate from Co-operative Court,

¶19

Nanded, a charge was accordingly created on the property of Sugar
Factory. A mutation certificate to that effect is annexed at page No. 18

¶20

938-CA-1850-22.odt

¶21

¶22

of the Application. It is further contention of the applicant that, they
have first charge on the suit property. Despite the said fact, the
respondent No.7 entered into Sale Deed with the petitioners herein /
respondents No. 1 and 2 in the present Application and sold the
property of respondent No.7 Sugar Factory to them. In this premise,
the present application is filed seeking its impleadment as a party
respondent in the main petition.

¶23

3.Having heard the respective parties and after perusing the
application, this Court is of the considered view that, the applicant is a
necessary party as Respondent to the petition and needs to be heard in
the petition.

¶24

4. In view thereof, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ and ‘C’.

¶25

5. The petitioners in Writ Petition 10712 of 2021 are directed to implead the applicant - Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch at Parbhani, as respondent No.7 in the Petition.

¶26

Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of three
weeks from today in the record of the Court and simultaneously in the
copies served upon the learned counsel for the respective Respondents.

¶27

( S. G. MEHARE ) ( A. S. GADKARI )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

rrd

Sangli Urban Co. Op Bank Ltd., Sangli through Its Recovery Officer v. Surana Builders and Developers Surana Sadan Ambejogai Thorugh Its Proprietor and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangli Urban Co. Op Bank Ltd., Sangli through Its Recovery Officer v. Surana Builders and Developers Surana Sadan Ambejogai Thorugh Its Proprietor and Others

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

Similar cases

Champalal Bherulal Jain Vs the Union of India and Others

Ram Narayandasji Mahasaheb Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jitendra Somnath Mandlik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Revansiddappa Utage and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kailas Hari Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dinkar Govindrao Mulay and Others Vs the Collector Ahmednagar and Others