M/s. On Wheels Logistics (P) Ltd & Ors. v. The Federal Bank Ltd & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Since the Appeal is now listed before the DRAT on 12 January 2012, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, we consider it expedient in the interest of justice to extend the protective order…
Judgment
Mr. Sanjay Jain with Mr. Vivek Phadke i/b. Kaikini Phadke & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr. Vivek Sawant i/b. Mr. Kusumakar Kaushik for Respondent 1. Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir with Mr. Mehul Shah for Respondent 2. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ. 09 JANUARY 2012. P.C. :- On 4 January 2012, the Petition was placed for admission before this Court. The Court directed that the Petition be placed on Board on 6 January 2012 and that in the meantime, until 6 January 2012 forcible possession of the secured assets shall not be taken. The Court was moved for urgent orders since possession of a residential flat was to be taken on the morning of 6 January 2012. The Court was apprised of the 2 WP 40.12.sxw fact that the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the DRAT has been admitted and a waiver of pre-deposit has been granted. The Appeal was listed for final hearing before DRAT on 8 December 2011 but could not be taken up and was adjourned to 12 January 2012. In the meantime, an order for taking possession was passed by the Recovery Officer. It was in these circumstances that a limited protective order was passed by this Court which was to remain operative till 6 January 2012. The Petition has been mentioned by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners with notice to the First and Second Respondents who are represented by Counsel. By consent, the Petition is taken on Board for admission and is called out.
Operative part
Since the Appeal is now listed before the DRAT on 12 January 2012, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, we consider it expedient in the interest of justice to extend the protective order which was passed on 4 January 2012 until 12 January 2012 when the DRAT is to take up the Appeal. We clarify that it would be open to the DRAT to take up the Appeal itself for final hearing on 12 January 2012 and if due to the 3 WP 40.12.sxw exigencies of the work, it is not possible to do so then to consider whether any further extension of the ad-interim protection is warranted. During the course of the hearing of these proceedings, Counsel for the auction purchaser has submitted that the auction purchaser would submit before the DRAT that title to the secured asset has already vested in favour of the auction purchaser upon the sale being confirmed and that therefore, no further extension should be granted. All the rights and contentions of parties are kept open. The Petition is disposed of. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A.A. Sayed, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Jan 2012. The bench was D Y CHANDRACHUD, A A SAYED.
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.