SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. Desai, Aniruddha P. Mayee, JJ.
Pankaj B Mangroliya – Petitioner
Versus
Andhra Bank – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 15119 of 2020
Decided On : 22-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr P J Kanabar
For the Respondent:Mr C.Z.Sankla, Ld.Advocate With Mr Virendra M Gohil, Mr Pavan S Godiawala

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1949 – Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 – Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Section 19 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – Income Tax Act, 1963 – Power of High Court to issue certain writs – Power of superintendence – Petition had purchased property in question way back not getting title of property learned advocate for petitioner appearing for respondent – Held, Tribunal Bank had raised objection about refunding amount case proceeded further and ultimately Tribunal has accepted prayers and directed Bank application realisation – Contrary carried on further by way of filing an appeal – Court opinion petition requires consideration not only ground that he is entitled for amount directed by Tribunal rate of interest granted by Tribunal original application till realisation – Petition is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

A.J. DESAI, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who had purchased the property in question way back in the year 2012 and not getting the title of the property, has prayed as under:

    “12 A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 28/08/2019 passed by learned Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai in Appeal No.37 of 2016 and Your Lordships may further be pleased to restore the order dated 14/09/2015 passed by the learned DRT-II, Ahmedabad in MA No.56 of 2014 in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent Bank to deposit a sum of Rs.38,38,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of the application i.e. 12/08/2014 in this Hon’ble Court on receipt of the notice from this Hon’ble Court to meet with the ends of justice;

D. Any other and further relief that may be thought fit may kindly be granted.”

2. Pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court, respondents have appeared through respective advocates and have filed affidavits-in-reply.

3. We have heard Mr.P.J.Kanabar, learned advocate for the petitioner; learned advocate Mr.C.Z.Sankla with Mr.Virendra Gohil, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 - Andhra Bank and Mr.Pavan Godiawala, learned advocate for respondent No.2- Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “GIDC”).

4. Short facts, emerging from the record of the case, are as under:

    That one M/s.Hetal Textiles Pvt. Ltd. availed a loan of Rs.53,90,741/- from the Andhra Bank in the year 1985. Against the said loan amount, certain immovable property were mortgaged with the bank and equitable mortgage was created. The said M/s.Hetal Textiles Pvt. Ltd. has constructed an Industrial Shed on Plot No.417/1, which was leased by Panoli GIDC to said M/s.Hetal Textiles Pvt. Ltd. for 99 years. Since the said M/s.Hetal Textiles Pvt. Ltd. could not repay the loan, Andhra Bank filed a Special Civil Suit No.679 of 1992 and prayed for decree, which reads as under:

“19. The plaintiff Bank therefore prays:

(a) A decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff Bank to recover Rs.53,90,741=00 with 27% interest p.a. payable at quarterly rests from defendants Nos.1 to 8 from the date of the Suit, till realisation and for the recovery of the following amount from Defendant Nos.9 to 11 with 27% interest p.a. payable at quarterly rests from the date of the suit till payment.

From

Amount Rs.

Defendant No.9

Rs.1,61,307.00

Defendant No.10

Rs.1,62,257.00

Defendant No.11

Rs.1,58,272.00

    and

It be held that the following immovable properties have been Equitably Mortgaged by below-mentioned Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff Bank to secure the suit financial facilities granted to Defendants Nos.1 to 6 and it be ordered that the said properties be sold for the payment of the abovementioned Suit dues of the Plaintiff Bank recoverable from Defendant Nos.1 to 8 and in case their sale proceeds are found to be insufficient to pay the plaintiff’s suit dues in full, liberty be granted to them to recover the balance amount from the other Assets of the Defendant Nos.1 to 6.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTIES.

(a) S.No.99, 100 and 101 of Village Ushakar, Taluka Mandvi, Dist. Surat admeasuring 1,28,287 Sq.Mtrs. adjoining Kim-Mandvi Highway Agricultural Lands S.No.404/1 and 404/2 of Village Dumas, Tal. Chorasi, Dist. Surat.

(b) R.C.C. Bungalow No.7 in the State Bank of India Employees Co-Op. Housing Society, Athwa-lines, Surat.

(c) Flat No.A/4, in Anupam Flats Co.-Op. Housing Society, Bhagatalao, Surat.

(b) A

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top