Page 1

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  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 2

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.   

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 3

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  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 4

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  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 5

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.   

No costs.   .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; April 19, 2016.