Full Judgment Text
1
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
JUDGMENT
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
Page 1
2
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.
JUDGMENT
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
Page 2
3
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
JUDGMENT
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.
Page 3
4
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
JUDGMENT
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.
Page 4
5
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.
JUDGMENT
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
April 19, 2016.
Page 5