Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 5]

Gujarat High Court

Neel Oil Industries - Partnership Firm & ... vs Union Of India & on 23 January, 2014

Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.B.Pardiwala

         C/SCA/1012/2014                               ORDER




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1012 of 2014

==========================================
===============
   NEEL OIL INDUSTRIES - PARTNERSHIP FIRM & 4....Petitioner(s)
                            Versus
              UNION OF INDIA & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================
===============
Appearance:
MR SHAKTI S JADEJA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 5
MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 5
==========================================
===============

        CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
               BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
               and
               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                           Date : 23/01/2014

                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) Issue Notice returnable on 6th February 2014.

Since in this petition the petitioners have not only challenged the provisions contained in Section 2[o] of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 as ultra vires the Constitution of India but also have disputed the right of the Cooperative Bank to proceed under the Act, let Notice be also issued upon the learned Attorney General of India returnable on 6th February 2014.

In view of the decision passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.930 of 2011 on 22nd April 2013 holding that Cooperative Banks cannot proceed under Section 13 (4) of the Act, Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/1012/2014 ORDER we find that the petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case to have an interim order restraining the respondent no.2 from taking further steps under the Securitization Act qua the secured assets as described in the notice dated 3rd August 2013 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization Act. We, however, make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of the respondent no.2 in taking steps for realization of the amount through other modes than the one specified in the Securitization Act, in accordance with law. Let this order to continue for a period of fortnight from today with a liberty to apply for extension on the selfsame application after service of notice upon the respondent no.2.

Direct service for the respondent no.2 is permitted.

(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) *malek Page 2 of 2