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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 9654

M/S TWENTYONE SUGARS LTD REPRESENTED THROUGH RUSHIKESH BHASKARRAO MORE – Appellant
Versus
THE OSMANABAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP 2543/2022



Advocates:
['HON ASHWIN V', 'CAVEAT FILED BY ADV SAPKAL SANDIP', '', 'SAPKAL SANDIP R', 'CAVEAT FILED BY ADV DEVAKATE ANANT R']

1 wp 2027.2022+

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

913 WRIT PETITION NO.2027 OF 2022

BHAIRAVNATH SUGAR WORKS LTD.

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

DHANANJAY UTTAM SAWANT

VERSUS

M/S TWENTYONE SUGARS LTD.

REPRESENTED THROUGH RUSHIKESH BHASKARRAO MORE

AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. V. A. Thorat, Senior

Advocate a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Advocate a/w.

Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Advocate a/w. Mr. Pranil

Sonawane, Advocate i/b. Mr. Anant R. Devakate

Advocate for Respondent No.1: Mr. V. D. Hon,

Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. V. D. Sapkal,

Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S. R. Sapkal

Advocate for Respondent No.3: Mr. R. N. Dhorde,

Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. P. S. Dighe, Advocate

i/b. Mr. V. R. Dhorde

AND

913 WRIT PETITION NO.2562 OF 2022

THE OSMANABAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

VERSUS

M/S TWENTYONE SUGARS LTD.

REPRESENTED THROUGH RUSHIKESH BHASKARRAO MORE

AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior

Advocate a/w. Mr. P. S. Dighe, Advocate i/b.

Mr. V. R. Dhorde

Advocate for Respondent No.1: Mr. V. D. Hon,

Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. V. D. Sapkal,

Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S. R. Sapkal

Advocate for Respondent No.3: Mr. V. A. Thorat,

2 wp 2027.2022+

Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Advocate

a/w. Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Advocate a/w. Mr. Pranil

Sonawane, Advocate i/b. Mr. Anant R. Devakate

AND

913 WRIT PETITION NO.2543 OF 2022

M/S TWENTYONE SUGARS LTD.

REPRESENTED THROUGH RUSHIKESH BHASKARRAO MORE

AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE OSMANABAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior

Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

Advocate for Respondent No.1: Mr. R. N. Dhorde,

Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. P. S. Dighe, Advocate

i/b. Mr. V. R. Dhorde

Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. V. D. Sapkal,

Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S. R. Sapkal

Advocate for Respondent No.3: Mr. V. A. Thorat,

Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Advocate

a/w. Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Advocate a/w. Mr. Pranil

Sonawane, Advocate i/b. Mr. Anant R. Devakate

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

S. G. DIGE, JJ.

DATE: 26th FEBRUARY, 2022

PER COURT:

1.

The Osmanabad District Central

Co-operative Bank Limited took over the possession

of the secured assets of M/s. Terna Shetkari

Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. under the provisions

3 wp 2027.2022+

of the Securitization and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as

‘Act-2002’). The Bank decided to lease the Sakhar

Karkhna by way of a long lease for 25 years. The

public notice was issued inviting tenders.

Bhairavnath sugar Works Ltd. is declared as

successful bidder. Another bidder namely M/s.

Twentyone Sugars Ltd., assailed the acceptance of

the bid of Bhairavnath Sugar Works Ltd. by filing

application U/Sec.17 of the Act-2002. The Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad under the impugned

order allowed the Securitisation Application

thereby setting aside the tender notice document,

aggrieved thereby the present Petitions.

2.

Writ Petition No.2027 of 2022 is filed by

the successful bidder. Writ Petition No.2562 is

filed by the Bank and Writ Petition No.2543 of

2022 is filed by the unsuccessful bidder who had

filed an application U/Sec.17 of the Act-2002

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4 wp 2027.2022+

3.

Pursuant to the public notice, tender of

Bhairavnath Sugar Works Ltd. was accepted. The

Tribunal set aside the tender notice document on

the ground that one month’s public notice was not

issued before finalisation of the tender. The

Tribunal relied upon Rule 9 of the Security

Interest (Enforcement) Rules-2002 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Rule

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