Gujarat High Court
Accurate Polymers, Partnership Firm vs Bank Of Baroda on 15 March, 2018
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/2094/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2094 of 2018
==========================================================
ACCURATE POLYMERS, PARTNERSHIP FIRM
Versus
BANK OF BARODA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MD RANA(694) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MR MIHIR PATHAK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
BHASKAR SHARMA(9209) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
PRABHAKAR GAUTAM(9283) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
DR VENUGOPAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 15/03/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. M.D. Rana, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mihir Pathak, learned advocate for respondent no.1 - Bank and Dr. Venugopal Patel, learned AGP for respondent no.2 on advance copy. Mr. Pathak shall file Vakalatnama today and the Registry shall accept the same.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: "A) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the action of the bank in initiating proceedings by Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/2094/2018 ORDER issuing notice under Section 13(1) showing it as plot no.22 and auction notice based on it is illegal and is not binding and further to quash the notices dated 9/5/17 and auction notice on 4/5/17.
B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings before the collector as it sought to rectify the proceedings before it.
C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the proceedings the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay such proceedings initiated on the basis of the notices issued under Section 13(1) and rule 6 of SARFAESI ACT."
3. Short facts which require to be noted are as under: That, the respondent no.1 - Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) against the principal borrower as well as the guarantor with regard to nonagricultural plot no.23, situated at Takudipara, Street no.5, being part of revenue survey No.55, situated at Jetpur, Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot. However, in the order passed under Section 14 of the Act as well as in the notice under Section 13 of the Act Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/2094/2018 ORDER issued by the respondent - Bank, there is mention of plot no.22. It is, however, pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondent-Bank that there was a typographical error and plot no.23, situated on the very survey number being part of survey no.55, plot no.22 is wrongly mentioned. Mr. Mihir Pathak, learned advocate for respondent no.1 - Bank has also invited attention of this Court to the application filed before the learned District Magistrate, which shows plot no.23 and not plot no.22. It appears from the description of the mortgaged secured asset as stated in the said application that plot no.22 is the adjoining plot, situated towards east of plot no.23 which is real subject matter of the proceedings under the Act. Mr. Mihir Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 - Bank, on instructions from Mr. Arvind Kumar, Chief Manager/Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Jetpur, who is present in the Court, states that the proceedings are initiated by respondent no.1 - Bank in relation to plot no.23 only and plot no.22 is not to be affected.
4. In light of the aforesaid, the learned District Magistrate, Rajkot is hereby directed to not to consider the application filed by the respondent no.1 - Bank in relation to plot Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/2094/2018 ORDER no.22 and no action be taken under the Act qua the application in question against the petitioner qua plot no.22.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J) mrp Page 4 of 4