IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 23881 of 2024
Decided On : 18-09-2024
Jurisdiction - Minorities Commission - Maharashtra State Minorities Commission Act, 2004 - The court held that the Minorities Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate individual complaints regarding financial disputes, emphasizing its role in safeguarding minority rights rather than resolving personal grievances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, including a banking company and its executives, challenged a notice from the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission regarding a complaint alleging harassment and misconduct related to recovery proceedings against a member of the Jain minority community.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Minorities Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a complaint that was essentially a personal grievance related to financial recovery, rather than a matter of minority rights.
Issues: Whether the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the banking company regarding alleged harassment and misconduct in recovery proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Minorities Commission's functions do not extend to adjudicating individual financial disputes, and its role is limited to protecting the rights of minorities as a whole.
Result: The court quashed the notice issued by the Minorities Commission and restrained it from proceeding with the complaint.
JUDGMENT :
Bharati Dangre, J.
1. Petitioner No.1, a banking company, incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 alongwith its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Group General Counsel, Head of Department of Special Operations and an employee, have approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 23/07/2024 issued by Respondent No.2-Maharashtra State Minorities Commission (hereinafter referred to as, “Minorities Commission”), asking them to attend the hearing, scheduled before it on 01/08/2024.
A writ of prohibition or a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition is also sought restraining Respondent No.2 from entertaining and/or proceeding with the hearing of the impugned complaint.
2. On the Petition being listed before us on 01/08/2024, the learned senior counsel representing the Minorities Commission informed us that the hearing was re-scheduled to 02/09/2024 and pursuant thereto, upon the affidavits being filed by the Respondents, we have taken up the Petition for hearing.
3. We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. Shirish Gupte alongwith learned senior counsel Mr. Kevic Setalvad i/b Aagma Law Associates for the Petitioners, whereas learned senior counsel Mr. Anil Sakhare alongwith Mr. Rohan Mirpury has represented Minorities Commission. Respondent No.3-the Complainant, who has lodged the complaint with Minorities Commission, is represented by learned senior counsel Mr. Abad Ponda alongwith Mr. Kushal Mor and Mr. Marmik Shah.
The State of Maharashtra is represented by Ms.Sheetal Malvankar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
By consent of the parties, it is agreed to take up the Petition for final hearing at the stage of admission and the learned counsel are heard in support of their stand adopted in the Petition.
4. On 22/07/2024, Respondent No.3-Mr. Rajesh Mehta, projecting himself to be the permanent trustee of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (hereinafter referred to as, “LKMM Trust”) lodged a complaint with Vice Chairperson of Minority Commission, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai alleging severe harassment and mental torture caused to him and his late father Mr. Kishor Mehta, an eminent person belonging to Jain Minority Community, by the Senior Management and Recovery Department of HDFC Bank, allegedly in collusion with the erstwhile trustees of LKMM Trust and attributing that this harassment caused death of Mr. Kishor Mehta on 20/05/2024.
The complaint alleged that his family was engaged in a fierce litigation with erstwhile trustees of LKMM Trust, with regard to the control of LKMM Trust and Lilavati Hospital for last two decades and the legal battle was carried upto the highest Court and pursuant to the order dated 18/09/2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Assistant Charity Commissioner vide his order dated 14/12/2023, rejected the claim of trusteeship of the erstwhile trustees, thereby finally giving his family the opportunity to take over the management and control of LKMM Trust and Lilavati Hospital. It is also stated in the complaint that in the year 2002, HDFC Bank Ltd, being part of consortium of banks, had initiated the recovery proceedings against the borrower company, M/s Beautiful Diamonds Ltd. (now Splendour Gems Ltd.) and his late father Mr. Kishor Mehta, in which he himself, were arraigned as the Defendants. In 2004, HDFC Bank Ltd. was successful in getting the Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs.14.74 crores from Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai against the borrower company, Mr. Mehtas and other Defendants.
The complaint further alleged that after issuance of the Recovery Certificate, the properties mortgaged by the borrower company came to be auctioned and till date property worth Rs.84 crores approximately, belonging to the borrower company, guarantors and mortgagors have been auctioned and sold by the
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
Special Director and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr.
K.S. Rashid & Son Vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.
AI
The Minorities Commission cannot adjudicate individual financial disputes; its role is to protect minority rights, not to resolve personal grievances.
The National and U.P. Commissions for Minorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate property disputes, functioning only as recommendatory bodies under their respective Acts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes exceeded its jurisdiction and acted as an adjudicatory authority, which was beyond its powers. Th....
Educational institutions - Protects right of minorities - Discrimination on basis of religion, caste, sex etc - It is clear that framers of Constitution intended that State shall not deny to any pers....
State Commission lacks adjudicatory authority; it cannot determine caste or tribe status of individuals or demand caste certificate production.
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lacks jurisdiction to investigate individual caste status claims, which violates natural justice principles.
Writ petitions can challenge the jurisdiction of statutory bodies, with jurisdiction being fundamental to the authority exercised by the Maharashtra State Minority Commission under the Maharashtra St....
The Manipur State Commission for Women has the power to entertain complaints and direct parties to appear for inquiry, but not to adjudicate or determine rights like a Court or Tribunal.
Point of Law : A perusal of Section 2(a) of the said Act, court could gather that Chairman shall be a person of a minority community and 8 other members from the minority communities hold a degree fr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.