Dismissed

Bhavinkumar Thakorlal Patel v. Reserve Bank of India through Regional Director

Gujarat HC1 May 2019SCA/20131/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's special civil application seeking a direction to reschedule loan installments and release a seized truck. The court held that soliciting RBI as a respondent did not make the petition maintainable, as the cooperative bank is not 'state' under Article 12. Additionally, the petition was barred as the earlier petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhavinkumar Thakorlal Patel Vs Reserve Bank… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/20131/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20131 of 2018

¶4

=============================================== BHAVINKUMAR THAKORLAL PATEL

¶5

Versus

¶6

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH REGIONAL DIRECTOR

¶7

===============================================

¶8

Appearance :

¶9

MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR BAIJU JOSHI(1207) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

===============================================

¶11

CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶12

Date : 01/05/2019

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

[1] The petitioner has filed present petition seeking direction against the respondent No.2 to accept the proposal made by the petitioner vide application dated 23.08.2018 for rescheduling the installments and to release the Truck bearing registration No. GJ-19-U-7542 in favour of the petitioner. The prayer is also made to quash and set aside the notice / communication dated 24.09.2018 and 08.10.2018 sent by respondent No.2.

¶15

[2] The petitioner being desired to start business of transportation, had applied for loan to the respondent No.2, which had disbursed the loan of Rs.21,76,000/- on 28.09.2013 to the petitioner. However, the petitioner could not repay the said loan amount, and therefore, the respondent - Bank had taken away the possession of the Truck in question. The petitioner, therefore, had filed Special Civil Application No. 4581 of 2017, since the said Truck was to be auctioned by

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

C/SCA/20131/2018 ORDER

¶18

respondent No.2. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2018 by the coordinate Bench of this Court with a liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent - Bank for reschedulement of payment of outstanding amount. Accordingly, the petitioner thereafter, had made a representation dated 23.08.2018 to the Manager of respondent No.2 – Bank with a request to reschedule the installments and release the Truck. However, the same having not been granted by the respondent No.2, the present petition has been filed.

¶19

[3] It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Adil R.Mirza appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the outstanding amount of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 be directed to reschedule the installments of loan. However, learned advocate Mr.Baiju Joshi appearing for the respondent No.2, challenging the maintainability of the petition, submitted that after the dismissal of the earlier petition, the present petition would not be maintainable. He also submitted that if the petitioner is ready to deposit 50% of the outstanding amount, then the Bank would positively consider the proposal for reschedulement of installments.

¶20

[4] At the outset, it may be stated that the petitioner had earlier challenged the action of the respondent No.2 in taking away possession of Truck in question and putting it to auction by filing Special Civil Application No.4581 of 2017, and the said petition having been withdrawn with a liberty to approach the respondent - Bank for reschedulement of payment of outstanding amount, the present petition as such would not be maintainable in as much as the Court had not granted any

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

C/SCA/20131/2018 ORDER

¶23

liberty to the petitioner for filing the petition afresh, if the proposal of the petitioner for reschedulement was not accepted by the respondent. Hence, the earlier petition having been dismissed as withdrawn, the present petition would not be maintainable.

¶24

[5] It is also pertinent to note that the petition against the respondent No.2, which is cooperative Bank and is not a “state” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, would not be maintainable. It appears that the petitioner has joined the respondent No.1 – Reserve Bank of India only with a view to see that the petition become maintainable, though no relief has been sought against the respondent No.1 - Reserve Bank of India. In that view of the matter, the petition being not maintainable in the eye of law, deserves to be dismissed. It may further be noted that though the petitioner was granted an opportunity to pay at least 25% of the outstanding amount to the respondent - Bank, he has expressed his inability to make the said payment. Hence, the respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the proposal of reschedulement of payment.

¶25

[6] In view of the aforesaid, there being no merits in the present petition and the petition being not maintainable stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.

¶26

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)

¶27

DHARMENDRA KUMAR

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Bhavinkumar Thakorlal Patel v. Reserve Bank of India through Regional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhavinkumar Thakorlal Patel v. Reserve Bank of India through Regional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajubhai Rameshbhai Chauhan Vs the Bank of Baroda

Sonal W/O Amitbhai Vara D/O Navinbai Rambhai Vaghela Vs Amitkumar Prafulbhai Vara

Meena Purshotamdas Magnani Vs Sardar Patel University

Dr.Alpesh Harishbhai Purohit Vs the Registrar

Dr.Alpesh Harishbhai Purohit Vs the Registrar

Chaitanya S/O. Pratik Sharma through Guardian Vs State of Gujarat