Disposed

Ms. Surekha Gaikwad v. the Citizen Credit Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2024WP/10824/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging dismissal of a Securitization Application interim relief by DRAT was disposed of by consent after the underlying Securitization Application was restored to file. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide it within four months and continued protection against coercive bank action over the suit property.

What did the court decide?

DRT-I directed to decide S.A. No. 78 of 2018 within four months; interim restraint on coercive action against suit property continued till disposal of that application.

Ms. Surekha Gaikwad Vs the Citizen Credit Co-Operative… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

16 wp 10824-18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10824 OF 2018

¶4

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE

¶5

Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2024.01.11 14:49:19 +0530

¶6

Surekha Gaikwad

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Citizen Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Nirav Doshi i/b. S. K. Legal Associates for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ashish Kanojia a/w Sachin Kanse for Respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh for Respondent No.4.

¶14

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 09, 2024

¶15

P. C.

¶16

The above Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short “ DRAT ”] dated 18^th September, 2018. By the impugned order, the DRAT dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. Originally, the Petitioner had filed a Securitization Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I (for short “ DRT-I ”), Mumbai being S.A. No. 78 of 2018 challenging the measures taken by the 1^st Respondent Bank against the property of the Petitioner. In the said Securitization Application, the Petitioner filed Interim Application No. 516 of 2018 seeking urgent interim reliefs that Page 1 of 3 JANUARY 09 2024

¶17

Laxmi

¶18

16 wp 10824-18.doc

¶19

was dismissed by order dated 6^th July, 2018. It was this order of the DRT which was challenged before the DRAT and which was also dismissed.

¶20

When this Writ Petition had initially come up on 25^th September, 2018, an interim order was passed that until further orders, the RespondentBank is restrained from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner in respect of the suit property, namely, Flat No. 1301, 13^th Floor, Rupji Castle CHSL, City Survey No. 150, G. D. Ambedkar Marg, Bhoiwada Naka, Parel, Mumbai 400012. Thereafter, on 17^th January, 2020, rule was issued and the interim order dated 25^th September, 2018 was continued till the disposal of the above Writ Petition. After all this, it appears that the Securitization Application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed for default. Therefore, the matter was moved before us by the Respondent-Bank to contend that the above Writ Petition has become infructuous because what was challenged in the above Writ Petition are only the interim orders.

¶21

Today when the matter is called out, we are informed that the Securitization Application filed by the Petitioner, namely, S.A. No. 78 of 2018 has been restored to file and will be heard on merits. In this light of the matter, the Petitioner as well as the Respondent-Bank agreed that the above Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the DRT-I, Mumbai to dispose of the above Securitization Application as expeditiously as possible, and in the

¶22

Page 2 of 3 JANUARY 09 2024

¶23

Laxmi

¶24

16 wp 10824-18.doc

¶25

meanwhile, the interim order dated 25^th September, 2018 can be continued till the disposal of the said Securitization Application.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid consensus between the parties, we dispose of the above Writ Petition by directing the DRT-I, Mumbai to hear and decide S.A. No. 78 of 2018 filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of four months from today.

¶27

Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Securitization Application, the Respondent-Bank shall not take any coercive action against the Petitioner in respect of the suit property, namely, Flat No. 1301, 13^th Floor, Rupji Castle CHSL, City Survey No. 150, G. D. Ambedkar Marg, Bhoiwada Naka, Parel, Mumbai 400012.

¶28

Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms thereof. No order as to costs.

¶29

7 . This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶30

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶31

Page 3 of 3 JANUARY 09 2024

¶32

Laxmi

Ms. Surekha Gaikwad v. the Citizen Credit Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Surekha Gaikwad v. the Citizen Credit 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

Similar cases

Chandrashekhar Rama Mourya Vs Bassein Catholic Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Shiv Charan vs Adjudicating Authority

Mishal Bilal Furniturewala vs New Kamal Kunj Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and 2 Ors.

Bank of Baroda vs Union of India through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs

G.S Constro and Infra Pvt.Ltd vs Nita Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs M/S a -One Handling Agency , Mumbai