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 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Nileshbhai Narottambhai Gohel vs Union Of India & 4 on 9 July, 2014

Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.B.Pardiwala

         C/SCA/9575/2014                                  ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9575 of 2014

================================================================
           NILESHBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI GOHEL....Petitioner(s)
                              Versus
                 UNION OF INDIA & 4....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MASOOM K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MOHINI K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================

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

                            Date : 09/07/2014


                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) Issue Notice returnable fortnight.

Since in this application, the writ-petitioner has challenged the provisions contained in Section 2 (1) (c) (iva) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as well as the provision contained in Section 2 (d)

(vi) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, let Notice be also issued upon the learned Attorney General of India.

After hearing Mr.Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/9575/2014 ORDER after taking into consideration the observations of the Supreme Court  in the case of Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Limited and Others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 236 (paragraph 89), we find that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case to have an interim order in terms of paragraph 9 (f) of the petition till the returnable date. This interim order, however, shall not stand in the way of the respondent-bank from recovering the amount under the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.

We, accordingly, pass such order.

Direct service by Speed Post upon Union of India and learned Attorney General of India is permitted.

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