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

Binal Himanshu Thakkar & vs Union Of India & 3 on 15 July, 2014

Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.B.Pardiwala

         C/SCA/9909/2014                                  ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9909 of 2014

================================================================
             BINAL HIMANSHU THAKKAR & 10....Petitioner(s)
                              Versus
                 UNION OF INDIA & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MASOOM K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 11
MR VISHWAS K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 11
================================================================

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

                            Date : 15/07/2014


                             ORAL ORDER

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

Since in this application, the writ-petitioners have 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 petitioners Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/9909/2014 ORDER and 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 petitioners have 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 is permitted.

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