Allowed

Mahagaon Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory, Mahagaon Thr. President v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur Thr. Its Registrar.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2024WP/6715/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition directing the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to refund a security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000 made during earlier proceedings involving the quashing of notices u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs. 3,00,000 to the petitioner within two weeks with accrued interest.

Mahagaon Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory, Mahagaon Thr. President Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur Thr. Its Registrar. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(1)

¶2

66 wp 6715-2023

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6715 OF 2023

¶5

Mahagaon Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory, Mahagaon, through its President Vs.

¶6

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur and another

¶7

- – - - - - - - – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Shri R.K. Thakkar, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

Shri N.S. Deshpande, DSGI for respondent No.1

¶11

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND SMT M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ. DATE : 15.01.2024

¶12

The petitioner in Securitization Application No. 151/2018, which challenge the action of the bank under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act had in pursuance to the order dated 07/08/2018, deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, with the Registrar D.R.T. on 16/08/2018, which was a condition for not taking further action by the bank (page No.15). Securitization Application No. 151/2018 has been allowed by the judgment dated 22/03/2019, whereby, the notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4), same notice and same certificate, which were sought to be quashed and set aside has been allowed (page 18). In pursuance to this judgment the petitioner made an application to the Presiding Officer D.R.T. Nagpur vide M.A. No. 71/2019, seeking withdrawal of this amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, which has been rejected by the

¶13

(2) 66 wp 6715-2023

¶14

order dated 31/08/2023 (pg 32), on the ground that the deposit was without any protest.

¶15

Though, Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent submits that there is an alternate remedy available, however, considering the nature of the plea we do not deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to go there as the matter can be disposed of finally on account of the admitted facts as prevailing in the present petition. Whether the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited with or without protest is not germane, what is germane, is that Securitization Application No. 151/2018 has been allowed by quashing the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the consequent actions thereto. In view of which, any amount deposited by the petitioner in those proceedings will have to be returned back to him. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The Registrar D.R.T. is directed to refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, with accrued interest, if any, as it is claimed that the amount was kept in an F.D.R. Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

Jayashree..

Mahagaon Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory, Mahagaon Thr. President v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur Thr. Its Registrar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahagaon Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Factory, Mahagaon Thr. President v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur Thr. Its Registrar.

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

Smt. Rukminidevi Agrawal Uchcha Madhyamik Va Kala Va Vidnyan Vidyalaya, Kakodi Thr. Principle Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Another

Progressive Engineering Co. Amravati Thr. Its Managing Partner, Shri. Pavneet Indermohan Singh Vs Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Thr. Its Dept. of Expenditure, New Delhi and Anr.

Shakil S/O Daulatbhai Khan through His Son, Shoyal S/O Shakil Khan Vs the Collector, Bhandara and Others

Sau. Sunita Pawan Jaiswal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bhudan Yagna Mandal, Thr. Its Secretary, Mr. Eknath Shamrao Dagwar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary Dept. of Revenue Nd Forest, Mumbai

Suresh Wasudeorao Patil Vs Collector, Nagpur and Others