Allowed

Hp State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC28 Aug 2017RP/67/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the review. It recalled and reversed a previous judgment (RSA No.154/2017) that held the State had a preferential charge, noting that a secured creditor with an existing charge on properties may take precedence. The appeal was restored to its original number and listed for admission.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 11.5.2017 in RSA No.154/2017 was recalled; the registry directed to register the appeal to its original number and list it for admission on 4.9.2017.

Hp State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs State of Hp — Company and Corporate | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

Review Petition No.67/2017 Decided on : 28/8/2017 __________________________________________________________ H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and anr. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy.A.G. _______________________________________________________________

¶3

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral):

¶4

CMP(M) No.1101/2017

¶5

For the reasons set out in the application, the same

¶6

is allowed and the delay of 17 days in filing the review petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

¶7

Review Petition No.67/2017

¶8

It is represented by learned counsel for the petitioner

¶9

that a charge had already been created over the properties of Kewal Krishan, defendant in the suit and thus it was a secured creditor and therefore, the judgments relied upon by this Court while disposing of RSA No.154/2017 to hold that the State has a

¶10

preferential charge would not be applicable.

¶11

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶12

…2…

¶13

I find considerable force in the said submission as

¶14

prima facie the priority of debts is always in favour of the secured creditor and in such circumstances, the paramountcy of the dues of the government will take back seat and the State would have no precedence over a pledgee of immovable property as the status of pledgee is as a secured creditor. However, this view is only prima facie based on the judgment rendered by a bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bombay

¶15

Stock Exchange vs. Kandalgaonkar (2015) 2 SCC 1 .

¶16

Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 11.5.2017 rendered in RSA No. 154/2017 is recalled. The registry is directed to register the appeal to its original number and thereafter list the same for admission on

¶17

4.9.2017 . The review petition stands disposed of.

¶18

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶19

28^th August, 2017 (pankaj)

Hp State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hp State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Sood Vs Inderjit Kaur

Hira Devi Vs State of Hp

Vidya Rattan Vs M.C.Nalagargh

Supdt of Post Office Vs Mohan Lal Gupta

Baldev Singh Vs Shyam Lal

The Moon International Apartment Owners Resident Welfare Association Vs Ashok Kumar Goel