Bombay High Court
M/S Agrawal Oil Industries Through ... vs State Bank Of India And Another on 14 May, 2019
(1) wp5735.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5735 OF 2019
M/s. Agrawal Oil Industries, .. Petitioner
through Partner ..
Versus
State Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.2-Caveator
CORAM : S.M.GAVHANE,J.
[VACATION COURT] DATED : 14.05.2019 P.C. :-
. Heard learned Counsel Mr.A.S. Bajaj for the petitioner and Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for respondent No.2/Caveator.
2. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr.K.J. Suryawanshi has appeared for respondent No.2-Caveator. Notice of respondent No.1-Bank is made returnable on 06.06.2019. The petitioner is permitted to serve notice on respondent No.1-Bank by private admissible mode of ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2019 02:29:45 ::: (2) wp5735.19 service apart from Court service and to file affidavit of service.
3. Mr.Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order under challenge in this petition is dated 25.04.2019 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, disposing the appeal of the present petitioner. It is submitted that as per letter Exh."C" of the Bank for one time settlement, the petitioner deposited in all Rs.33.27 lakhs, as seen from letter Exh."I" dated 04.12.2012 of respondent No.1-Bank. It is submitted that as per said letter only, respondent No.1 - bank had informed the petitioner to arrange to obtain necessary consent decree from the DRAT, Mumbai and on receipt of consent decree from the DRAT, Mumbai, they may issue no-dues certificate to the petitioner. It is submitted that at that time the proceeding was pending before the DRAT, Mumbai. It is submitted that without considering the aspect of one time settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.1-Bank, the DRAT has passed ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2019 02:29:45 ::: (3) wp5735.19 the impugned order.
4. Mr. Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale certificate of the property of the petitioner is yet to be issued in favour of respondent No.1 and sale of the said property is yet to be confirmed. Therefore, the petitioner has every right over the mortgaged property, in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.K. Trust Vs. EDC Limited and Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 780 and decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 12.09.2012 in Writ Appeal No.893 of 2012. In the above circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that the interim protection be granted in terms of prayer clause "D" in the petition, at least till next date.
5. Mr.K.J. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that in October, 2009, respondent No.2 has deposited amount and purchased the property in auction sale and the petitioner cannot claim ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2019 02:29:45 ::: (4) wp5735.19 right over the property purchased by respondent No.2.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the nature of order impugned in the present petition and the fact that some issues are required to be decided by this Court in the present writ petition, interim protection needs to be granted to the petitioner till next date.
7. Therefore, ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (D) of the petition till 06.06.2019.
8. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] VACATION COURT snk/2019/MAY19/wp5735.19 ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2019 02:29:45 :::