Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Rajnil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging actions of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the State Bank of India. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner would move the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was scheduled to sit on March 4 and 5, 2010 at Nagpur. The respondent bank's counsel gave an undertaking that the bank would not finalize the sale until March 5, 2010, after the auction held on the date of judgment. In light of these submissions, the court found no reason to entertain the petition and disposed of it with the above terms. The rule was also disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Debt Recovery - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Petitioner agreed to move Debt Recovery Tribunal scheduled for March 4-5, 2010 - Bank undertook not to finalize sale till March 5, 2010 - Court disposed of petition without entertaining merits - Held that no reason to entertain petition when petitioner can avail alternative remedy and bank has given undertaking (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition against the Debt Recovery Tribunal when the petitioner is willing to move the Tribunal and the bank has given an undertaking not to finalize the sale.
Final Decision
Petition disposed of as above. Rule disposed of in the above terms.
Law Points
- Disposal of writ petition on consent
- No interference when alternative remedy available
- Undertaking by bank not to finalize sale
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 114
Writ Petition No.801 of 2010
S.A. Bobde, Smt. Vasanti A. Naik
Shri A.H. Lohiya for petitioner; Shri Anilkumar for respondent no.2 & 3
M/s Rajnil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India through Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai; State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Nagpur; State Bank of India, Industrial Financial Branch, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition against Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and bank regarding recovery proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought relief from the High Court against the Debt Recovery Tribunal and bank actions.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged actions of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and State Bank of India in recovery proceedings.
Issues
Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition when the petitioner is willing to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the bank has given an undertaking not to finalize the sale.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel stated that petitioner will move the Debt Recovery Tribunal scheduled for March 4-5, 2010.
Respondent bank's counsel stated that the bank will not finalize the sale till March 5, 2010, after the auction held today.
Ratio Decidendi
When the petitioner is willing to avail the alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the bank has given an undertaking not to finalize the sale, there is no reason for the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will move the Debt Recovery Tribunal which is due to have sitting on the 4th and 5th of March, 2010 at Nagpur.
Shri Anilkumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 & 3 states that the respondents will not finalize the sale till 5th March 2010, after the auction is held today.
Hence there is no reason to entertain this petition. Petition is disposed of as above.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.801 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. On 16th February 2010, the court heard the parties and disposed of the petition on the basis of the petitioner's willingness to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the bank's undertaking not to finalize the sale.
Acts & Sections
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993:
