M/S Maurya Dhawaz Agrotech & Systems Pvt.Ltd. a company v. The United Commercial Bank
Case at a glance
- Bench
- JAYANANDAN SINGH
Provisions considered
Judgment
The Branch Manager, the Reliance General Insurance, 301/302, Kaushalya Estate, Bandar Bagicha, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna-800001. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Adv. For the UCO Bank : Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv. For respondent no.4 : Mr.Chittranjan Sinha, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Siddhartha Prasad, Adv. For respondent no.5 : Mr.Ashok Priyadarshi, Adv. For respondent nos.6to8 : Mr.Alok Kumar Shahi, Adv. and Mrs. Archana Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.10805 of 2011 (11) dt.29-08-2012 11 29-08-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioners had formulated issues and had filed a typed copy of the same for consideration by this Court in this writ application.
The issues are as follows :- (i) Gross laches on part of respondent bank it’s authorities in not considering viability of the petitioner unit for the purpose of rehabilitation by restructuring the accounts in terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. (ii) Guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India in month of September 2000 and revised in the year 2011 never followed by the bank as the bank has nowhere come out with any instance of any endeavour made in that regard to conduct the study of viability of the petitioner cold storage unit. (iii) Severe laches on part of bank in expediting the availment of subsidy from NABARD apparent from the affidavit filed by NABARD and admitted by bank as never contradicted by bank by any reply or affidavit. (iv) Bank did not credit the first spell of Rs.25 lacs of subsidy from NABARD in to the account of petitioner and for the second spell of Rs.25 lacs did not take proper steps with due sincerity to which the petitioner unit attracted disorder in the accounts and was classified as NPA. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.10805 of 2011 (11) dt.29-08-2012 (v) Bank did not pursue insurance companies towards realization of insurance claims and chose to maintain silence due to which the insurance companies also repudiated the claims of the petitioner deliberately and arbitrarily.
(vi) Inadequate valuation made by the bank’s approved valuer forming part of the valuation report dated 25.05.2011 of the same industrial plot which has been evaluated at Rs.1.05 crore in (vii) (viii) (ix) the year 2005. Inadequate valuation made of the cold storage unit by the approved valuer. Unit active and fully viable for industrial activity. Plant machinery of the unit is in sound condition and the unit if financially revived can be one of the best cold storage units in Bihar. (x) Insurance companies to reexamine claims of the petitioner with the assistance of the bank and finalize it on merits. However, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. [(2010) 8 SCC 110], he submits that the petitioners are ready to move the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. In the circumstances, the writ application is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to move the Tribunal in terms of the said Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.10805 of 2011 (11) dt.29-08-2012 This writ application was presented in the stamp report section of this Court on 01.07.2011 and was registered on
07.07.2011. It was taken up on 08.07.2011 by a Bench of this Court when notices were issued to respondent nos. 5 to 8 and the respondent nos.1 to 3, who were appearing in the case, were restrained from taking any action in terms of the auction notice published by them on 08.06.2011. The stay has continued till today. Hence, in the interest of justice, this Court directs that the stay order shall continue for one month more from today. During this period petitioners will be at liberty to file their appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for interim order which shall be considered by the Tribunal on merits without going into the question of limitation. They will also be at liberty to raise any issue before the Tribunal which, in their opinion is fit to be considered and is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider in exercise of power under Section 17 of the Act. The respondents shall be at liberty to object consideration of any issue by the Tribunal on merits on any grounds which they consider appropriate. Arvind/- (Jayanandan Singh, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.