Union Bank Of India, Nagpur Thr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6966 Bom

                                                                                WP.3822.16
                                             1




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




                                                            
                                             ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 3822/2016

Union Bank of India A Banking Company duly constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking)

Act No. V of 1970, Having its registered office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239 Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point,

Mumbai and Branch at Dhnatoli, Nagpur, Through its Bank Authorized Officer, Officer and Constituted Attorney,

Shri S. Arvind Kumar, aged about 48 years occu: service R/o C/o Union Bank of India Branch at Dhantoli, Nagpur. ...PETITIONER.

      


                    v e r s u s
   



    1)      The State of Maharashtra
            Through its   Secretary

Ministry of Finance and Revenue Departments Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.

2) The District Magistrate/Collector, Nagpur Office situated at Collectorate Building Civil Liens, Nagpur.

    3)      M/s Primus  Realtors Pvt.ltd. 
            Through its Director, 
            Shri Kamal Shantilal Kothari, 
            Plot No.2, Museum Road, 
            Near Gupta House,Civil Lines, 
            Nagpur 440 001./

    4)      M/s Tristar Retail Ltd. 

Through tis Director Shri Kamal Shantilal Kothari R/o Plot No.2, Museum Road,

WP.3822.16

Near Gupta House, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 440 001.

5) Shri Kamal s/o Shantilal Kothari R/o Plot No.2, Museum Road, Near Gupta House, Civil Lines Nagpur-440 001.

6) Mrs.Preeti w/o Kamal Kothari R/o Plot No.2, Museum Road, Near Gupta House Civil Lines Nagpur-440 001. ...RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. S.D.Ingole, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.M.Balpande, Asst.Govt.Pleader for Res.Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. V.S.Giramkar, Advocate for Respondents 3 to 6

............................................................................................................................

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &

MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ .

DATED : 6 December, 2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J . )

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel

for the parties.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner-Union Bank of India, impugns

the order of the District Magistrate, Nagpur, dated 12.2.2016, rejecting an

Application filed by the petitioner, under Section 14 of the Securitization and

WP.3822.16

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest

Act, 2002.

3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate

has rejected the Application of the petitioner, solely on the ground that the

sales-tax authorities had attached the secured property for recovering the sale

tax dues. It is stated that the petitioner-Bank had filed the Writ Petition,

challenging the action of the sales-tax authorities of attaching the property

and putting the same to auction and the said Writ Petition was allowed and

the action on the part of the sales-tax authorities of attaching the property,

was set aside. It is stated that even otherwise, the District Magistrate does

not have jurisdiction to consider, whether there was a charge on the property

or not. It is stated that it is only necessary for a District Magistrate to consider,

whether the secured creditor has furnished appropriate details in the affidavit

that is required to be submitted under section 14(1) (a) of the Act. It is

stated that the District Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the

Application filed by the petitioner.

4. Shri A.M.Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.S. Giramkar, the

learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3to 6 do not dispute the statements

made on behalf of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the Writ Petition filed

WP.3822.16

by the petitioner-Bank was allowed and the action of the sales-tax authorities

of attaching and putting the concerned property to auction, was set aside.

5. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to

be set aside. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the District

Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate upon the other

aspects of the matter. The District Magistrate was only required to consider

whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner was in consonance with the

provisions of Section 14 of the Act. Even otherwise, the order of the District

Magistrate is liable to be set aside as the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-

Bank was allowed and the action on the part of the sales-tax authorities of

attaching the property and putting it to auction, was set aside. Since there is

no charge of the sales-tax authorities on the said property, the impugned order

is liable to be set aside.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is

remanded to the District Magistrate for passing appropriate orders under

section 14 of the Act, in accordance with law.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to

costs.

                              JUDGE                                  JUDGE
    sahare