Bombay High Court
Union Bank Of India, Nagpur Thr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 6 December, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
WP.3822.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3822/2016
Union Bank of India
A Banking Company duly constituted under
the provisions of Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking)
Act No. V of 1970, Having its registered
office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239
Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point,
Mumbai and Branch at Dhnatoli, Nagpur,
Through its Bank Authorized Officer,
Officer and Constituted Attorney,
Shri S. Arvind Kumar, aged about 48 years
occu: service R/o C/o Union Bank of India
Branch at Dhantoli, Nagpur. ...PETITIONER.
v e r s u s
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Finance and Revenue Departments
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2) The District Magistrate/Collector, Nagpur
Office situated at Collectorate Building
Civil Liens, Nagpur.
3) M/s Primus Realtors Pvt.ltd.
Through its Director,
Shri Kamal Shantilal Kothari,
Plot No.2, Museum Road,
Near Gupta House,Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440 001./
4) M/s Tristar Retail Ltd.
Through tis Director Shri Kamal Shantilal Kothari
R/o Plot No.2, Museum Road,
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:03:41 :::
WP.3822.16
2
Near Gupta House, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. 440 001.
5) Shri Kamal s/o Shantilal Kothari
R/o Plot No.2, Museum Road,
Near Gupta House, Civil Lines
Nagpur-440 001.
6) Mrs.Preeti w/o Kamal Kothari
R/o Plot No.2, Museum Road,
Near Gupta House Civil Lines
Nagpur-440 001. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. S.D.Ingole, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.M.Balpande, Asst.Govt.Pleader for Res.Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. V.S.Giramkar, Advocate for Respondents 3 to 6
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI,
JJ
.
DATED : 6 December, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J . )
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner-Union Bank of India, impugns the order of the District Magistrate, Nagpur, dated 12.2.2016, rejecting an Application filed by the petitioner, under Section 14 of the Securitization and ::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:03:41 ::: WP.3822.16 3 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate has rejected the Application of the petitioner, solely on the ground that the sales-tax authorities had attached the secured property for recovering the sale tax dues. It is stated that the petitioner-Bank had filed the Writ Petition, challenging the action of the sales-tax authorities of attaching the property and putting the same to auction and the said Writ Petition was allowed and the action on the part of the sales-tax authorities of attaching the property, was set aside. It is stated that even otherwise, the District Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to consider, whether there was a charge on the property or not. It is stated that it is only necessary for a District Magistrate to consider, whether the secured creditor has furnished appropriate details in the affidavit that is required to be submitted under section 14(1) (a) of the Act. It is stated that the District Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the Application filed by the petitioner.
4. Shri A.M.Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.S. Giramkar, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3to 6 do not dispute the statements made on behalf of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the Writ Petition filed ::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:03:41 ::: WP.3822.16 4 by the petitioner-Bank was allowed and the action of the sales-tax authorities of attaching and putting the concerned property to auction, was set aside.
5. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate upon the other aspects of the matter. The District Magistrate was only required to consider whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner was in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. Even otherwise, the order of the District Magistrate is liable to be set aside as the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-
Bank was allowed and the action on the part of the sales-tax authorities of attaching the property and putting it to auction, was set aside. Since there is no charge of the sales-tax authorities on the said property, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate for passing appropriate orders under section 14 of the Act, in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:03:41 :::