Dismissed¶8

Rohini Ramesh Kalyankar Since Deceased Throu. His L.H. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2025WP/11521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, W.P. No. 11521 of 2024, decided 28 March 2025 (A.S. Chandurkar and M.M. Sathaye, JJ.). Keywords: delay and laches; writ petition against DRAT order; Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Mumbai; Debts Recovery Tribunal Mumbai; Central Bank of India; alleged lack of notice of appellate recovery proceedings; R.C.S. No. 166 of 2016; Special Civil Suit Nos. 50/2007 to 68/2007 and 129/2007; return of without-prejudice deposit of Rs.1 crore; dismissal of writ petition as barred by delay.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; the writ petition was not entertained on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. The Court directed that the amount of Rs.1 crore deposited by the petitioners without prejudice be returned to Petitioner No.2. ¶8

Rohini Ramesh Kalyankar Since Deceased Throu. His L.H. and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition filed in June 2024 challenging the DRAT judgment dated 25.11.2014 ought to be entertained despite the delay and laches of the petitioners in approaching the Court. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The petitioners failed to explain the delay and laches in a fair manner; the Court declined to exercise discretion in their favour and did not entertain the writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The record of the civil suit filed by the original petitioner herself (trial Court order dated 16.06.2016 and the Bank's written statement dated 25.08.2016) already contained references to the DRT and DRAT orders in 2016 itself; therefore the averment in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that petitioner No.1 got knowledge of the DRAT order only in February 2024 cannot be accepted.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delay and laches – Writ petition filed in June 2024 challenging the judgment dated 25.11.2014 of the DRAT, Mumbai, which modified the DRT, Mumbai order dated 28.04.2010 (that had exonerated the Petitioners from repayment liability) and held the Petitioners liable to pay the outstanding debt to the Central Bank of India – Petitioners claimed first knowledge of the DRAT order only in February 2024, from applications filed by Respondent No.1 in pending Special Civil Suit Nos. 50/2007 to 68/2007 and 129/2007 – Held: the trial Court's order dated 16.06.2016 in R.C.S. No. 166 of 2016, a suit filed by the original petitioner herself, and the Bank's written statement dated 25.08.2016 specifically referred to the DRT and DRAT orders, so the plea of first knowledge in February 2024 could not be accepted – Petitioners failed to explain the delay and laches; the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed – Deposit of Rs.1 crore made without prejudice ordered to be returned to Petitioner No.2.

¶1

Sneha Chavan 1 911-WP-11521-2024 (2).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11521 OF 2024

¶4

Rohini Ramesh Kalyankar Since Deceased Throu. Legal heirs Rasik Ramesh Kalyankar and Ors. ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. Amogh Karandikar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. S.H. Kankal, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No.1/State.

¶9

Mr. Sunil Kadam, Advocate for the Respondent No.2/Bank. Mr. Satwindar Singh, Officer of the Central Bank of India present.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 28^th MARCH 2025

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

In this writ petition challenge is raised to the judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “DRAT”) thereby modifying the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “DRT”) dated 28.04.2010. By the said order, the DRT exonerated the present Petitioners from any liability in making repayment. The Respondent No.2-Central Bank of India being aggrieved, challenged the said judgment by filing separate appeals. By the impugned judgment, the DRAT modified the order passed by the DRT and held the Petitioners liable to pay the outstanding debt.

¶16

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 09.04.2025

¶17

1/4

¶18

Sneha Chavan 2 911-WP-11521-2024 (2).doc

¶19

Considering the fact that a challenge has been raised in this writ petition filed in June 2024 to the order passed by the DRAT dated 25.11.2014, the aspect of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court requires to be first examined.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the averments in paragraph 15 of the writ petition. Paragraph 15 reads as under:

¶21

“15. The Petitioners state that in the pending Special Civil Suit Nos. 50/2007 to 68/2007 and 129/2007 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel, the Respondent No.1 on or around 16.12.2023 filed an application to frame the Issue of jurisdiction as a Preliminary Issue and further prayed to decide the said Issue and dismiss the said Suits. In the said applications, the Respondent No.1 for the first time given a reference of filing of an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the year 2011 challenging the Order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the said original applications against the Petitioners. The copy of the said applications was served upon the Petitioner No.1 in or around in the month of February 2024. At that moment, the Petitioners, for the first time came to know that the Respondent in the year 2011 filed the appeals before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai,mentioned hereinabove. The Petitioners filed reply to the said application in the month of March 2024, filed in the Special Civil Suit No. 50/2007 to 68/2007 and 129/2007. The Petitioners state that in the reply the Petitioners have taken a specific stand that they have no knowledge of the filing of appeals by the Respondent No.1 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and the Orders passed therein. It is also stated in the said reply that the Petitioners have not received any notice of any of the appeal from the Respondent No.1 or from the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The said application was heard by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel and by Order dated

¶22

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 09.04.2025

¶23

2/4

¶24

Sneha Chavan 3 911-WP-11521-2024 (2).doc

¶25

15.06.2024, the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 in the pending Special Civil Suit No. 50/2007 to 68/2007 and 129/2007 as appearing from the Roznama. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 'J (Colly)' are copies of the applications filed by the Respondent No.1 in pending Special Civil Suit No. 50/2007 to 68/2007 and 129/2007. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 'K (Colly) ' are copies of the replies filed by the Petitioners to the said applications. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit ‘L’ (Colly) ’ are copies of the Roznama dated 15.06.2024 in Special Civil Suit No. 50/2007 to 68/2007 and 129/2007.”

¶26

The learned Counsel for the petitioners therefore, submitted that it was only in the month of February 2024 that the petitioners got knowledge of the fact that the DRAT had determined their liability by the order dated 25.11.2014. Since the petitioners were not heard by the DRAT, it was submitted that the writ petition be entertained on merits.

¶27

The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank tendered copy of order passed below Exh.11 in R.C.S. No. 166 of 2016 which was a suit filed by the original petitioner - Mrs.Rohini Ramesh Kalyankar. In the said suit, the petitioner sought declaration that the action initiated by the Bank was illegal and contrary to law. The prayer for grant of status quo was considered by the trial Court on 16.06.2016 and by observing that in view of specific order passed by the DRT as well as the DRAT no case was made out for grant of status quo. The learned Counsel has further referred to the written statement filed on behalf of the Bank in the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners. In paragraph 5(t), it has been pleaded as under.

¶28

“5(t) Meanwhile, the Appeal 144 of 2011 have been finally heard and allowed. The Plaintiff, Mr. Ramesh

¶29

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 09.04.2025

¶30

3/4

¶31

Sneha Chavan 4 911-WP-11521-2024 (2).doc

¶32

Kalyankar and their Company R.R. Kalyankar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. have been held liable to claim of these Defendants. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-B is copy of order dated 25^th November, 2024.”

¶33

From the aforesaid, it is evident that in the order dated 16.06.2016 passed in the civil suit filed by the petitioner herself, a specific reference has been made to the orders passed by the DRT as well as the DRAT. Similarly, in the written statement filed by the Bank on 25.08.2016, it has been specifically pleaded that the appeal preferred by the Bank came to be allowed on 25.11.2014. Thus from the record of the suit filed by the original petitioner, it is clear that there is a reference to the aforesaid proceedings in the year 2016 itself.

¶34

In the light of this record of the suit filed by the original petitioner herself, it is not possible to accept the averments made in the paragraph 15 of the writ petition that the petitioner No.1 got knowledge of aforesaid order only in February 2024. Since we find that the petitioners have failed to explain the aspect of delay and laches in a fair manner, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. Hence, on the ground of unexplained delay and laches, the writ petition is not entertained. It is therefore dismissed.

¶35

The amount of Rs.1 crore deposited by the petitioners without prejudice shall be returned back to Petitioner No.2.

¶36

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶37

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 09.04.2025

¶38

4/4

Rohini Ramesh Kalyankar Since Deceased Throu. His L.H. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohini Ramesh Kalyankar Since Deceased Throu. His L.H. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Edelweiss Asset Reconsstruction Company Limited vs Savitribai Phule Pune University

Ashok Dattatraya Phanse Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs and Ors. vs the Government of India Thr Its Defence and Ors.

Ashok Dattatraya Phanse Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs and Ors. vs the Government of India Thr Its Defence and Ors.

Health Secure (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Reserve Bank of India

Sandeep Bipin Shah vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs

Vinaya Dattatray Badami vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.