Bombay High Court
M/S. Rakshim Builders Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The Union Of India, Through Its ... on 11 October, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
2-WP-444-15.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 444 of 2015 and
CIVIL APPLICATION(w) NO.2088/2022
M/s Rakshim Builders Pvt. Ltd. through its Director- Suresh s/o Laxmanrao Umak and
another.
vs.
The Union of India, through its Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms S.K.Paunikar, Advocate petitioners.
Shri C. J. Dumane, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Ms S. S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 3 and 6.
Shri G.R.Sadar, Advocate for respondent no.5.
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE :- OCTOBER 11, 2022
P. C.
The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the notice
dated 27.12.2012 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act of 2002) as well as
the notice dated 16.01.2014 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act
of 2002 issued by the respondent nos.4 and 5 which is a
Commercial Co-operative Bank. In addition, the order dated
20.09.2014 passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is also
under challenge.
Since the question with regard to applicability of the
provisions of the Act of 2002 to a Co-operative Bank was pending
before the Honourable Supreme Court, this writ petition came to be
admitted. By the judgment dated 05.05.2020 in the case of
Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule Vs. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari
Bank Limited [(2020) 9 SCC 215] the Honourable Supreme Court
has now held that the Co-operative Bank would fall within the
purview of the Act of 2002. It therefore becomes clear in view of
the aforesaid decision that the remedy under Section 17 of the Act
of 2002 is available to the petitioner for seeking adjudication of the
prayers made in the writ petition.
It is seen that during the pendency of the proceedings, the
petitioners had submitted a proposal for onetime settlement of the
claim. The said proposal was dated 28.02.2019. By moving Civil
Application No.2088 of 2022, the petitioners seek to amend the
writ petition with a prayer for a direction to the respondent nos. 4
and 5 to consider the said proposal.
In the reply filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 it has
been stated that in the meeting of the Bank held on 19.03.2019
various proposals for onetime settlement including the proposal of
the petitioners was considered and by giving reasons that proposal
has been rejected.
In the light of the aforesaid factual backdrop, we find that
insofar as the prayers made in the writ petition are concerned, the
mortgaged property has been sold and third party rights have been
created therein. Nevertheless, the remedy under Section 17 of the
Act of 2002 is available to the petitioners if it is aggrieved by the
same.
Insofar as consideration of the onetime settlement offer is
concerned, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have taken decision
thereon. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of that
proposal, they are free to take legal recourse against the same in
accordance with law. The amendment as prayed for has thus
become redundant.
Thus with liberty to the petitioners to challenge rejection
of its onetime settlement proposal, the writ petition is disposed of.
Consequentially, the civil application does not survive and it is
disposed of as such.
Rule stands discharged. No costs.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Digitally Signed byJAYANT S
ANDURKAR
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:
12.10.2022 17:56
