Model Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs Rpee Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Through ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 74 Bom

                                                                WP11729_19.doc

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO.11729 OF 2019

Model Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. and others                  ...        Petitioners
Vs.
Rupee Co-op. Bank Ltd. Through V. D. Barive
and another                                              ...        Respondents

Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Yakshay Chheda, Mr.
Vaibhav Charanwal & Warisha Parkar i/b. Parinam Law Associates for
Petitioners.
Mr. Pratap Patil for Respondent No.1-Bank.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for Respondent No.2-State.


                                      CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 15, 2019 P.C. :

Heard Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Rajan, learned AGP for respondent No.2-State.

2. At the outset, Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners would like to amend the writ petition and in this connection has furnished Schedule 'A' before the Court. He further seeks leave to add recovery officer and revisional authority as respondents.

2.1. Leave as prayed for is granted.

3. Petitioners have certain fixed deposits with respondent No.1- Bank. At the same time, petitioners had also availed cash credit facilities from the said respondent No.1 Bank.

4. Acting on Reserve Bank of India's directives, respondent No.1 Bank closed the cash credit account and initiated steps for recovery of the overdraft amount but at the same time refused to release fixed

WP11729_19.doc

deposits of the petitioners.

5. According to the petitioners while respondent No.1 did not allow accrual of interest on the fixed deposits, interest was added to the overdraft amount thereby leading to an anomalous situation whereby petitioners were confronted with huge outstanding dues. In this connection, respondent No.1 Bank took resort to the provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and obtained a recovery certificate.

6. Grievance of the petitioners is that since their fixed deposits have been frozen by respondent No.1 Bank, they are unable to deposit 50% of the certificate amount, which would enable them to file revision application against the order granting recovery certificate. In such circumstances, writ jurisdiction has been invoked.

7. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 seeks time to obtain instructions.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, Court is of the view that both, petitioners and respondent No.1 may sit across the table and place their respective proposals, and if possible, to strive for settlement of the dispute.

9. In any event, on the next date, petitioners to come up with their proposal, so also respondent No.1.

10. Stand over to 29.11.2019. To be listed in the Supplementary Board.

11. Till the next date, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

                                                    (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)
Minal Parab                                                                     2/2