Dismissed

Nandkumar Gopalrao Kulkarni and Anr. v. Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2023WP/12870/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Debt Recovery Tribunal's order. It held that no exceptional circumstances existed to bypass the statutory appeal remedy. However, the Court extended ad-interim relief for two weeks to allow the petitioner time to file an appeal in DRAT.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of with dismissal, but ad-interim relief is extended for two weeks to allow filing of appeal to DRAT.

Nandkumar Gopalrao Kulkarni and Anr. Vs Hdfc Bank… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

13-WP-12870-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 0

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12870 OF 2022

¶5

Shri Nandkumar Gopalrao Kulkarni)...Petitioner
 V/s.
HDFC Bank Ltd. and Another)...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Karan S. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Agrawal, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 10 MARCH 2023

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the
Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dated 10 August 2022
dismissing Interim Application No.888 of 2022 in
Securitisation Application No.74 of 2021. The learned
Counsel for Respondent-Bank rightly points out that the
Petitioner has a remedy of filing an Appeal in the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). It is laid down in
various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that

¶11

AVK 1/3

¶12

13-WP-12870-2022.doc

¶13

Securitization Act is a complete code in as much as it provides
for remedies albeit upon condition and therefore, the Writ
Petition ought not to be entertained unless exceptional
circumstances are made out.

¶14

2We find no such exceptional circumstance. The learned
Counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioner has paid a
certain amount and they are ready for ‘One Time Settlement’.
A writ of mandamus to the bank cannot be issued that they
must accept the ‘One Time Settlement’. It is between the
borrower and the bank.

¶15

3The Petitioner had moved the Vacation Bench on 2
November 2022 and while issuing notice, ad-interim relief has
been granted. In light of what is stated above and the binding
dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not possible to
entertain the Petition. However, considering that ad-interim
relief is in operational since 2 November 2022, the same is
extended for a period of two weeks from today, so that if the
Petitioner wishes to file an Appeal, the Petitioner can do so
during this grant of ad-interim order. Grant and extension of
ad-interim order is not to be construed of reflection on merits
of the case. The extension, if any, thereafter, would be purely

¶16

AVK 2/3

¶17

13-WP-12870-2022.doc

¶18

on its own merit. The learned Counsel for the Respondents
objects to continuation of the ad-interim order stating that no
notice was given while granting the ad-interim order. Be that as
it may, to give some breathing time to the Petitioner, we have
extended the ad-interim order for a period of two weeks as
stated above.

¶19

4 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶21

Digitally ARTIVILASKHATATE signed byARTI VILASKHATATEDate:2023.03.16 15:27:00 +0530

¶22

AVK 3/3

Nandkumar Gopalrao Kulkarni and Anr. v. Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkumar Gopalrao Kulkarni and Anr. v. Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr.

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

Hi-Tech Rock Products and Aggregates Limited Vs the Union of India through Secretary Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance and 3 Ors.

Diju Enasy and Anr. Vs Icici Bank Limited and 6 Ors.

Shailendra Gopal Agarwal and Anr. Vs Icici Bank Limited and 4 Ors.

Apar Industries Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Guala Closures India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Served through Secretary of Gov. India) Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Amglo Resources Private Limited Vs Union of India Thr. Ministry of Commerce and Ors.