Shreetube Manufacturing Company ... vs Central Bank Of India And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1890 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1890 Bom
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2022

Bombay High Court

Shreetube Manufacturing Company ... vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 24 February, 2022

Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige

                                        (1)                                908-wp-1877-2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.1877 OF 2022

 SHREETUBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT LTD THROUGH ITS
 DIRECTOR SHRINIWAS LAXMINARAYAN RATHI ..PETITIONER

                  VERSUS

 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                   ..RESPONDENTS
                                       ...
 Mr.   P.  G.                  Godhamgaonkar,              Advocate             for       the
 Petitioner.
                                              ...

                                     CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                             S. G. DIGE, JJ.

DATED : 24th FEBRUARY, 2022.

PER COURT:-

1. Prima facie, writ petition would not be maintainable. The petitioner had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has rejected the securitization application of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

2. In the present writ petition the petitioner is not challenging the order of the Tribunal rejecting the securitization application wherein the auction sale was challenged. The matter is seized with the Appellate Authority.

3. We can entertain the writ petition only on the ground that, the Appellate Authority is not available. However, the order which is assailed in

(2) 908-wp-1877-2022

the Appeal is not challenged in the writ petition. There cannot be contrary orders wherein proceeding challenging auction sale is already rejected and that order is still in force. Unless the said order is challenged, the present petition would not be tenable.

4. The Notification is already issued appointing the Presiding Officer for Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. However, we are told that, the charge is not yet taken by him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on certain judgments.

6. Place the matter on 07.03.2022.



   (S. G. DIGE)                                 (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
          JUDGE                                         JUDGE


 Devendra/February-2022