✦ Bombay High Court · 13 Mar 2007

The Miraj Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd v. Redressal Forum Sangli & Anr.

Writ Petition No. 643 of 2007F I REBELLO, R M SAVANT

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. G.M. Savagave, for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Kulkarnil for respondent No.3. Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for Respondent Nos. 9,11,12,13, 22,24,26,27,28 and 30 Mr. Abhjeet Mavathe i/b. Udwadia & Udeshi for Respondent No.35. Mrs. A.R.S. Baxi for respondent No.7. F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : CORAM : F.I.F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : REBELLO & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2007 DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2007 P.C. P.C.P.C. . The case of the complainants who are respondents herein is that moneys were due and payable before the purported Moratorium by the Reserve Bank dated October, 27,

2006. From the impugned order we could not find that the petitioner herein took up any defence that they could not make payment on the ground that the Reserve Bank of India has prohibited them from releasing the amounts. If it is the case of the petitioner that such a stand was taken and not answered by the Consumer Forum it is open to them to apply to the Consumer Forum for review of that order.

2.

Even otherwise the impugned is order dated 28th November, 2006 and considering that the R.B.I. Notification is of 27th October, 2006 it will be open to the petitioners herein to move the R.B.I. to point out the order of the Consumer Forum. The Reserve Bank of India to dispose of the representation according to law. . With the above observation petition disposed of. All interim orders stand vacated. . For a period of two weeks from today no proceedings in contempt be taken against the petitioners. F.I.REBELLO, J) (F.I.REBELLO F.I.REBELLO R.M.SAVANT,J.) (R.M.SAVANT,J R.M.SAVANT,J

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 13 Mar 2007. The bench was F I REBELLO, R M SAVANT.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 643 of 2007). ← Search more judgments