Bombay High Court
Harmeet Singh Manmohan Singh Bawa ... vs Shikshak Sahkari Bank Ltd., ... on 21 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Anil Laxman Pansare
43-WP-8289-22.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.8289 of 2022
Harmeet Singh Manmohan Singh Bawa and another.
vs.
Shikshak Sahkari Bnk Ltd. through its Manager and others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S.Dhore, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri N. L. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondents-Bank.
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.,
DATE :- DECEMBER 21, 2022
The petitioners seek to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act of 2002) on the ground that
the notice issued and steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Act of
2002 are clearly barred by limitation. According to the petitioners,
amount was borrowed by their mother pursuant to execution of
mortgage deed on 16.08.2004 in favour of the respondent no.1-
Bank-Creditor. The account turned into Non-Performing Asset
(NPA) on 25.11.2005. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of
2002 was issued on 09.10.2006 and action under Section 13(4)
was taken pursuant to the notice dated 11.03.2022. By relying
upon the provisions of Section 36 of the Act of 2022 alongwith the
judgments of the Delhi High Court in Somnath Manocha vs. Punjab
and Sindh Bank and anr. [2012(129) DRJ 654(DB), Kolkata High
Court in Dr. Dipankar Chakraborty vs. Allahabad Bank and others
[2017 SCC Online Cal 8742] and the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jignesh Shah and another vs. Union of India and
another [(2019) 10 SCC 750] it is urged that in view of provisions
of Article 62 of the Limitation Act 1963, the measures under
Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 have been taken beyond the
period of twelve years.
In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Director of School Education and another vs.
A.N.Kandaswamy and another [(1998) 8 SCC 26] it is urged that
since the proceedings are barred by jurisdiction, the writ petition
can be entertained.
Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on
10.01.2023.
Shri N.L.Jaiswal, learned counsel appears and waives
service of notice for the respondents. He seeks to raise a
preliminary objection to the tenability of the writ petition on the
ground that remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 is available
to the petitioners. He seeks time to file affidavit in reply.
While granting time to the respondents-Bank to file their
reply and keeping their objection open, it is directed that until
further orders no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the order
dated 14.12.2022 that has been passed under Section 14 of the Act
of 2002. The petitioners shall not create any third party rights in
the subject property in the meanwhile.
Stand over to 10.01.2023.
(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Digitally Signed byJAYANT S
ANDURKAR
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:
21.12.2022 19:00
