9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. In the meantime, on 17th November, 2016, the present petition came to be filed. It is entirely incomprehensible as to what was the justification on part of the petitioners not to respond to the notices, but straightway to rush to file the present petition. Thus there was no occasion to invoke the jurisdiction of the writ court at the stage and in the circumstances obtained. The self-convenient act of on part of the petitioners to file present petition seeking to invoke the writ powers of the Court are indeed not well conceived in law and partakes an abuse of process of law, warranting a strict view. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19295 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2016 - MR. N.V.ANJARIA, J. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR JAL SOLI UN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fourth petitioner herein mortgaged by way of deposit of Title Deeds immovable properties for securing the said financial facilities granted by the Bank to the petitioner. Further mortgage was made for the same purpose, of other properties by the second petitioner herein. 3.1 It is the further case that somewhere around 18th July, 2006 another partnership firm named M/s.Rainbow Industries-the sixth respondent herein was incorporated with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as partners. The said Rainbow Industries also extended the credit facility for which petitioner Nos.2 to 5 mortgaged property bearing Survey No.970/1 Paiki situated at Unjha, Mehsana. 3.2 In the year 2009, the credit limit for the petitioner was once again increased to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Civil Court, Mehsana allowed Exhibit 5 application of injunction in favour of the plaintiffbuyer which is in force. The Suit is pending having been transferred to the Civil Court at Visnagar registered as Special Civil Suit No.91 of 2015. 3.5 As the dues of Bank was not paid by petitioner No.1, disputes between petitioner No.1 and the Bank arose and recurred time and again. The correspondence was sought to be exchanged by the petitioner No.1. The petitioners have averred in detail about those correspondence by narrating relevant facts in that regard in the memorandum of petition, which is not required to be set out herein. 3.6 Finally the respondent Bank issued demand notice dated 24th February, 2016 under Section 13(2) of the SE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners are restrained from dealing with the property. 3.7.2 On 26th March, 2016, the petitioners themselves approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing Securitisation Application No.115 of 2016 challenging the notice dated 03rd June, 2016 and 08th June, 2016, being the possession notice mentioned above as well as the newspaper-notice published. 3.7.3 On 05th July, 2016 the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed order against the Bank not to take possession without an order under Section 14 of the Act. 3.7.4 The respondent Bank filed Application under Section 14 of the Act before the District Magistrate, Mehsana. 3.8 Following related developments may also be mentioned-(i) M/s.Yogamrut Developers filed Special Civil A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts constituting such cause of action have not arisen. 5.1 Over and above all, the petitioners have already filed their Securitisation Application No.115 of 2016 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging notice dated 03rd June, 2016 and 08th June, 2016 referred to above. The clinching fact is that present petition is directed against issuance of notice/ summons only by the District Magistrate who has acted pursuance to the application of the Bank presented under Section 14 of the Act. No order is passed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners are called upon to remain present and answer the case. 5.2 Even otherwise and even at later stage after final order which may be passed by the Magistrate in the proceedings compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. It is hoped and trusted that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection. 6. It is quite clear that the District Magistrate, upon an application being filed by the respondent Bank under Section 14 of the SERFAESI Act, has only issued a notice/summons to the petitioners to remain present on 07th November, 2016 and answer the case. It is this notice which is challenged by the petitioners and it is at this stage that the petitioners have filed this petition. It appears that the petitioners sent letter to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
