Bombay High Court
Praful Kanhaiyalal Talera vs Union Of India Jt Secretary And Legal ... on 29 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:4147-DB
Digitally signed
by MULEY
SHUBHAM
MULEY PRAVINRAO
SHUBHAM Date:
PRAVINRAO 2024.01.29 1 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
17:40:24
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2023
Praful Kanhaiyalal Talera ... Petitioner
V/s.
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 369 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1149 OF 2023
-------------------------
Mr. Praful K. Talera, Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. S. R. Nargolkar Amicus Curiae a/w Neeta Patil present.
Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala a/w P. S. Gujar for Respondent
No.1 and 2-2D.
Mr. Nishin Shrikhande a/w Nidhi Fagariya i/by Vidhii Partners for
Respondent No.5.
Mr. Vinod Joshi for Respondent No.6.
Mr. Harjot Singh i/by Raval Shah & Co. for Respondent No.10
(through VC).
Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate a/w Yuvraj Narvankar for
Respondent No.14.
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w Vinita Hombalkar for
Respondent No.15.
Ms. Roopdaksha Basu a/w Heenal Wadhwa i/by The Law Point for
Respondent No.16.
Shubham 1/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
2 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP and R. A.
Salunkhe, Addl. GP for State.
-------------------------
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
RESERVED ON : 22th JANUARY, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th JANUARY, 2024
P.C.: (PER ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner, who
appears in person, has sought various diverse reliefs which we
shall set out shortly.
2. We have heard Mr. Talera, at some length. Before
however adverting to the rival contentions, it will be useful, in
order to give context to the same, to briefly set out the relevant
facts in a nutshell, viz.
a. The Petitioner claims to be a promoter/director of
Respondent No.10 i.e., Dynamic Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent No. 15 i.e., IDBI Bank had initiated
recovery proceedings by filing an Original Application
(OA) in the year 2001 under the provisions of the
Shubham 2/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
3 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (RDBI Act) inter alia against
Respondent No. 10 and several other companies
stated to be of the Talera Group. The Petitioner was
Respondent No. 3 to the OA.
b. It is not in dispute that thereafter, a decree was
passed in the OA and a Recovery Certificate was
issued in favour of Respondent No. 15 in the year
2003. It appears that thereafter, Respondent No. 15
assigned the Recovery Certificate to Respondent No.
14 in the year 2004. Thereafter in the year 2013,
Consent Terms came to be entered into between
Respondent No. 14 and 15 on the one hand and
Respondent No. 10 on the other hand by which
Respondent No. 10 inter alia agreed to settle its
account under One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS)
within time bound schedule as more particularly set
out in the Consent Terms.
c. It is these Consent Terms which the Petitioner is
primarily aggrieved by and seeks to challenge on the
Shubham 3/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
4 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
ground that (i) the consent terms were fraudulently
and unauthorizedly entered into by Respondent No. 10
(ii) the payment made under the consent terms to
Respondent No. 14 was also fraudulent and benami
(iii) that the original documents / security documents
have still not been returned to Respondent No. 10
despite a passage of 13 years and (iv) that on account
of continuation/non closure of proceedings before the
DRT, the Petitioner would continue to be liable under
the Recovery Certificate and no remuneration has
been paid to the Petitioner from Respondent No. 10
company for the past several years.
3. Mr. Talera then, in support of his contention that the
transactions between Respondent No. 10, 14 and 15 were
fraudulent, benami and illegal made the following submissions,
viz.
(a) That the Consent Terms which had been entered into
on behalf of Respondent No.10 pursuant to board
resolution which was passed/signed by only three
independent directors, who did not own a single share
in Respondent No.10.
Shubham 4/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
5 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
(b) That despite the fact that the debt had been assigned
by Respondent No. 15 in favour of Respondent No. 14,
Respondent No.14 had not yet been substituted as the
recovery certificate holder in place and stead of
Respondent No. 15.
(c) That the consent terms were filed by the Parties before
the Recovery Officer DRT Pune despite the fact that
this Court had vide an order dated 5th September 2011
passed in WP 6639 of 2010, WP 6742 of 2010 and WP
6715 of 2019 recorded the statement of Counsel that
all further proceedings were to be conducted by the
DRT Aurangabad.
(d) That the former Advocate of Respondent No. 14 had
since been appointed as the Presiding Officer, of the
DRT Pune.
(e) That the security documents of Respondent No. 10
continued to be in the custody of the Prothonotary and
Senior Master of this court for the last 17 years.
Shubham 5/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
6 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
It was basis the above that Mr. Talera submitted that the conduct
of Respondent No. 10, 14 and 15 was entirely fraudulent and
illegal. He submitted that by entering into the consent terms,
Respondent No. 14 and Respondent No.15 have acted against the
interest of the Petitioner, Respondent No.10 and public interest
by syphoning of funds and misappropriating shares and assets of
various group companies of Respondent No.10. That the very fact
that the consent terms were filed before the Recovery Officer
Pune and not before the DRT Aurangabad, made manifest the
fraudulent intention and malafides on the part of Respondent No.
10, 14 and 15. He thus submitted that the monies collected by
Respondent Nos. 14 pursuant to the consent terms was benami
and illegal since Respondent No. 14 was not even the holder of
the Recovery Certificate since the same stood in by the name of
Respondent No. 15.
4. At this stage, Mr. Kamat, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No.15 raised a preliminary
objection as to the very maintainability of this Writ Petition. He at
the outset pointed out what according to him were four very
crucial dates, (i) the date of the Decree in the OA, which was in
Shubham 6/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
7 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
the year 2003 (ii) the date of the Recovery Certificate i.e., 29 th
December, 2003 (iii) 30th September 2004 when the debt of
Respondent No. 15 was assigned to Respondent No. 14 and (iv)
the date of Consent Terms, i.e. 1 st October, 2013. Mr. Kamat then
invited our attention to the Petition, more particularly, paragraphs
28 and 29 of the Petition and pointed that the real
dispute/grievance of the Petitioner appeared to be with family
members of the Talera family qua certain testamentary
matters/proceedings.
5. Mr. Kamat then invited took us through each of the
prayers which had been sought for in the Petition viz.
"(a) This this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ
of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition or
any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction barring
the Sale of R. No. 15 IDBI Bank Ltd and the creation
of Third Party interests by the Govt of India by
Respondent No 1 and 3 to 7 ; and the Respondents
No 2A, 2B and 2C be barred from further interfering
and conducting the RP No 67/2004 in OA No 791-P of
2001 till the final decision of this Writ Petition.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ
of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, thereby calling upon
record and papers pertaining to MA No. 81/2019 and
the unnumbered Appeal before the Presiding Officer,
DRT- Pune and after examining the legality and
validity of the same, be pleased to dispose the same
Shubham 7/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
8 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
on merits; thus bringing to final closure the Recovery
Proceeding bearing RP No. 67/2004.
(c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ
of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, direction or order to
Quash all the earlier orders passed by the Respondent
No. 2A and 2B in the Recovery Proceeding No 67 /
2004 in OA No 791-P/ 2001 and release the securities
and shares of the Petitioner.
(d) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
direction, quashing the orders dated 10.3.2022,
20.5.2022 and 26.7.2022, passed by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Pune, in M.A. No. 81/2019 giving
permission to file reply to R .No. 15 IDBI Bank Ltd
and R .No. 14 SASF and other Respondents, inspite of
seven such opportunities being given to them, and
serious objections being raised by the Petitioner.
(e) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
direction thereby granting all the prayers sought by
the Petitioner in his unnumbered Appeal filed before
the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune and criminal
proceedings be initiated against the wrong doers viz.
R.No. 15 IDBI Bank Ltd., R.No. 14 SASF, Vasumati
Talera and others.
(f) That this Hon'ble Court may please issue a Writ of
Mandamus, or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or direction awarding
Mesne Profits be awarded to the Petitioner in light of
the frauds, forgeries and perjuries committed by
R.No. 15 IDBI Bank Ltd, R.No. 14 SASF and Third
Party Intervener Vasumati Talera in the Recovery
Proceedings No 67/2004 and they be ordered to make
good the losses suffered by the Petitioner.
Shubham 8/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
9 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
(g) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ
of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or direction for dismissal
of recovery proceedings pending before the Learned
Recovery Officer being R.P. No. 67 of 2004, having
become infructous and Recovery Officer has become
functus officio.
(h) That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or direction dismissing
the Misc Application No. 44 of 2013 filed before the
Respondent No 2A by R.No. 15 IDBI Bank Ltd & R.No.
14 SASF.
(i) That this Hon'ble Court may please issue a Writ of
Certiorari, or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or direction dismissing
the Misc Application No. 15 of 2011 before the
Respondent No 2D filed by R.No. 15 IDBI Bank Ltd &
R.No. 14 SASF on merits.
(j) That this Hon'ble Court may please issue a Writ of
Certiorari, or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing
the order dated 23.12.2009, passed in Appeal No. 22
of 2009, restraining R.No. 10 Dynamic Logistics Pvt.
Ltd and the Guarantors from taking possession of
Memorandum of Entries dated 13.1.1998, 2.3.1998,
17.3.1998 with the title deeds deposited under the
same from the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High
Court at Judicature at Bombay, until decision of the
Appeal.
(k) That the Hon'ble Court may please issue a Writ of
Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing
the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court of
Judicature at Bombay to release the documents to the
respective Shareholders of R. No. 10 Dynamic
Shubham 9/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
10 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
Logistics Pvt. Ltd deposited under Contempt Petition
No. 07/2009.
(l) That the Hon'ble Court may please issue a direction to
decide all the matters in the present Writ Petition and
put an end to the plethora of litigation pending since,
2001, for last 22 years.
(m) Cost of this petition be awarded to the Petitioner.
(n) Any other relief, order or direction as this Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of this case.
(o) Any other just and equitable orders/directions in
favour of this Petitioner."
Form the above, Mr. Kamat, pointed out that the Petitioner had
an alternate remedy under the provisions of the RDBI Act in
respect of each of the reliefs which had been sought for, except
the relief seeking on order and/or direction barring the sale of
Respondent No. 15. Not only that, he also invited our attention to
Exhibit 'DD' of the Petition which was the very appeal filed by the
Petitioner before the DRT Pune in which the Petitioner had
specifically impugned the Consent Terms. From the Appeal he
pointed out that the Petitioner had himself stated viz.
"5.16 During the pendency of the said R.P. No.67/2004 before
the Ld. Recovery Officer, the Respondents No.1(a) and (b)
entered into One Time Settlement (OTS) with Dynamic
Shubham 10/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
11 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
Logistics Pvt. Ltd on 01/10/2013. The said Consent Terms were
filed before the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune under MA
No.44/2013. The Appellant herein neither signed nor consented
to the said Consent Terms. The Appellant was not aware of the
said Consent Terms and after getting knowledge, filed various
applications before the Ld. Recovery Officer challenging the
said Consent Terms and locus standing of Respondents No.1(a)
and 1(b) to enter into the Consent Terms, as they were not the
assignees. True Copy of the OTS dated 01/10/2013 is hereto
annexed as Annexure `J'"
Basis this, he submitted that the present Writ Petition was a
complete abuse of the process and was required to be dismissed
at the threshold.
6. Mr. Dada learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent No.14 equally submitted that the Petition was
wholly misconceived. He submitted that Respondent No. 14 had
received the amounts due under the consent terms and thus
there was no subsisting liability qua Respondent No. 10 and
therefore the question of making any claim against the Petitioner
did not arise. He stated that therefore the Petitioners
apprehension of there being a subsisting liability against the
Petitioner was entirely misplaced and devoid of merit. He then
invited our attention to the Petition itself and pointed out that the
Shubham 11/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
12 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
Petitioner had himself in paragraph 37 of the Petition stated that
no amounts remained outstanding and thus his apprehension of
being held liable was entirely misconceived. Mr. Dada submitted
that the consent decree having been satisfied, Respondent No.14
would not be taking any steps against the Petitioner in his
capacity as guarantor or otherwise in respect of the amounts that
were due/payable by Respondent No.10 under the consent
decree.
7. In dealing with the contention that the consent terms
were filed before the Pune Bench of the DRT, Mr. Dada submitted
that the matter was transferred to the Pune Bench of the DRT
since the Aurangabad Bench was not available at the time and
that the same was in no manner malafide or contrary to any
order.
8. Mr. Nargolkar, learned Amicus Curiae, submitted that
the Petition did not appear to be bonafide at all. He submitted
that the same appeared to have been filed for some ancillary or
collateral purpose only to delay the proceedings before the DRT.
In support of his contention, he invited our attention to
Shubham 12/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
13 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
paragraph 37.14 in which the Petitioner had stated that the
proceedings before the DRT were not stayed despite the
pendency of the present Writ Petition. Basis this, he submitted
that the conduct of the Petitioner did not appear to be bonafide
and it appeared that the Petitioner was only attempting to
stay/delay the proceedings before the DRT Pune. He submitted
that the Petition thus appeared to have been filed for this
ancillary purposes.
9. After having heard Mr. Talera in person at length and
considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective Respondents as also the learned Amicus Curiae, we
find that this Petition is thoroughly misconceived and is neither
maintainable nor entertainable for the following reasons, viz.
A. The Petitioners principal grievance is to the Consent
Terms dated 1st October 2013. We find that not only
does the Petitioner have an alternate remedy to
challenge/set aside the consent terms, but that the
Appellant has infact availed of that remedy. Not only
has the Petitioner on his own admission made, various
applications to set aside the consent terms, but there
Shubham 13/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
14 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
is infact a present challenge to the Consent Terms
which is subsisting before the DRT Pune. Given this,
we find absolutely no reason why we should in our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to embark upon any enquiry/challenge to
Consent Terms when the DRT Pune is already ceased
with the same.
B. The essence of other prayers which have been sought
for by the Petitioner is for this Court to hear and
dispose of all the proceedings filed by the Petitioner,
Respondent No. 10, 14 and 15 and which are pending
before the DRT Pune. Again, we see absolutely no
reason for us to embark upon such an exercise. Apart
from the fact that given the nature of allegations of
fraud, forgery etc. which have been made by the
Petitioner, a Civil Court/Tribunal is best suited to hear
and deal with the same, these proceedings are already
instituted and pending. Hence, the same must reach
their natural conclusion under the regime provided for
by the RDBI Act.
Shubham 14/16
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::
15 WP_1149_of_2023.docx
C. Additionally, the Petition also raises various questions
of fact and law which are also best suited to be
decided in a civil proceeding before the competent
Civil Court/Tribunal. We must also note that we are not
wholly satisfied with the conduct of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has while making very serious allegations of
fraud, forgery etc. failed to explain why he has after
over ten years from the date of filing of the Consent
Terms, chosen to approach this, Court. There is no
explanation for this inordinate delay.
10. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, we find the Petition
to be entirely without merit. We therefore pass the following
order :-
:ORDER:
i) Petition dismissed.
ii) The DRT Pune to hear and decide all pending
applications/Appeals filed in and/or arising out of OA 791-P/2001 within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Presiding Shubham 15/16 ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 ::: 16 WP_1149_of_2023.docx Officer, DRT Pune who shall then issue directions for the hearing of all the said Applications.
iii) It is made clear that the DRT Pune shall decide said Applications/Appeals on their own merits uninfluenced by this order.
iv) All rights and contentions to be kept open, including of maintainability of the said Applications/Appeals and the jurisdiction of the DRT Pune, if raised by the Petitioner.
11. In view of the above order, Interim Application (St.) No.369 of 2024 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Shubham 16/16 ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2024 08:03:39 :::