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

R.M.BORDE, A.S.GADKARI
Mahindra Chandrasen – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners in W.P. No.5252 of 2015:Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Mr. Vinod Kothari and Pinaz Merchant i/by T.N. Tripathi & Co. and M/s. Apex Law Partners
For the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P. No.54 of 2015:Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Mr. Vinod Kothari and Pinaz Merchant i/by T.N. Tripathi & Co. and M/s. Apex Law Partners
For the Applicants in CAW No.3188 of 2015:Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Mr. Vinod Kothari and Pinaz Merchant i/by T.N. Tripathi & Co. and M/s. Apex Law Partners
For the Respondent No.2 in W.P. No.5252 of 2015:Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Harshit Seth, Mr. Rishi Senghal, Ms. Akshata Chavan, Mrs. Shashikant Kadam, Mr. Satraj Singh Gill and Ms. Pragati Sharma i/by R. Ramesh, Advocate
For the Applicant in CAW No.2088 of 2016:Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Harshit Seth, Mr. Rishi Senghal, Ms. Akshata Chavan, Mrs. Shashikant Kadam, Mr. Satraj Singh Gill and Ms. Pragati Sharma i/by R. Ramesh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 in WP No.5252 of 2015:Ms. Rajani Iyer, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nainesh Amin, Advocate
For the Petitioner in WP No.54 of 2015:Ms. Rajani Iyer, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nainesh Amin, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 in Civil Application No.2088 of 2016 and Civil Application No.3188 of 2015:Ms. Rajani Iyer, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nainesh Amin, Advocate

JUDGMENT

A.S. Gadkari, J.—The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5252 of 2015 have questioned the correctness of that part of the Judgment and Order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 14.10.2014 passed in Appeal No.206 of 2012 to the extent of setting aside the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai in Securitization Application No.107 of 2011, thereby denying the restoration of possession of the suit property and for other consequential reliefs. The applicant in Civil Application No.2088 of 2016 is respondent No.2 in W.P. No.5252 of 2015 and by the said application the applicant/respondent No.2 has prayed that, an action as contemplated under Section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be initiated against the petitioners in Writ Petition No.5252 of 2015, for the offences under Section 177, 182, 193, 199 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code. Writ Petition No.54 of 2015 has been filed by the Bank, who is respondent No.1 in W.P. No.5252 of 2015,praying for an appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside and to expunge that part of the impugned orders dated 7.9.2012 and 14.10.2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai























































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top