M/S SHILPA SHARES AND SECURITIES & ORS Vs. THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 4239 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 19, 2016
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4239 OF 2016
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 24712 OF 2014 ]
M/S SHILPA SHARES AND SECURITIES & ORS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ORS Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The case before us has a chequered history involving so many
litigations. The appellants availed a loan from the first respondent -
Bank. The loan was not serviced and hence, the Bank took steps to recover
the dues by proceeding against the secured assets of the appellants. In
the meanwhile, the Reserve Bank of India announced two One-Time Settlement
Schemes, one in the year 2004 and the other in the year 2006.
3. According to the appellants, when the matter was under consideration
before the Bank, the auction was conducted on 11.02.2008. However,
according to the respondents, the auction was conducted after the rejection
of the proposal for One-Time Settlement.
4. Be that as it may, the auction conducted on 11.02.2008 was set aside
by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, exercising his
powers under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act read
with Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, as per
order dated 20.05.2013.
5. Challenging the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, both
the Bank as well as the 7th respondent-auction purchaser have filed two
writ petitions before the High Court, being Writ Petition No. 650 of 2014
by the Bank and Writ Petition No. 572 of 2014 by the 7th respondent-auction
purchaser.
6. In the meanwhile, the appellant had already filed Writ Petition No.
173 of 2014 before the High Court, praying for a direction to the first
respondent to process his application for One-Time Settlement. That Writ
Petition was dismised by the High Court as per the impugned Judgment dated
20.03.2014. It appears that the High Court has not gone into the merits of
the case and the writ petition was rejected mainly on the ground that the
writ petition filed by the Bank against the order passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar setting aside the sale was already pending. As a matter of
fact, we have already noted that the writ petition filed by the 7th
respondent is also pending before the High Court.
7. In the above factual matrix, in our view, the approach made by the
High Court, in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant on the
ground that writ petition filed by the Bank is pending, is not correct. No
doubt, the question of consideration of the writ petition filed by the
appellant herein would arise only in case the writ petitions filed by the
Bank and the 7th respondent-auction purchaser are dismissed.
8. Therefore, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court and
restore Writ Petition No. 173 of 2014 to the files of the High Court of
judicature of Bombay for consideration afresh, after disposal of the Writ
Petition No. 572 of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 650 of 2014 filed by the
first respondent - Bank and the 7th respondent-auction purchaser
respectively.
9. Sh. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, on instruction, submits that the appellants will not initiate
any fresh litigation in respect of the dispute on the action taken by the
Bank for recovery, till the Writ Petition No. 173 of 2014 is finally
disposed of. The above submission is recorded.
10. We make it clear that it will be open to the parties to take all
available contentions before the High Court, including the contentions
taken by the Bank and the 7th respondent on the maintainability of the
Revision Petition under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act read with Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Rules, which led to the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar. We also make it clear that we have not considered the
subject matter on merits.
11. It is seen that on 20.09.2014, this Court had passed an order, as a
pre-condition for issue of notice in the Special Leave Petition, directing
the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 44,97,000/- with Respondent No.
1 - Bank. We note that the said amount has already been deposited.
12. It will be open to the High Court to pass appropriate orders with
regard to the said amount, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 173 of 2014
filed by the appellants.
13. Needless also to say that the writ petition will be heard and
disposed of by the High Court, uninfluenced by any of the observations made
in this Judgment.
14. We request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition
expeditiously and preferably within six months from today.
15. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed
of.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
April 19, 2016.