MANJUSHA ARVIND PANDE Vs. NIRMAN ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the application.

(2.) THE revision applicant had filed Special Civil Suit No.606 of 2009 inter alia for a declaration that she is the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice of the rights of respondent no.2 and as such owner of the suit flat bearing No.302, 3rd floor, Sudhakar Apartment and for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent no.2 bank from proceeding against the suit flat vide notice dated 23rd October, 2008. At the instance of respondent no.2, the trial court framed preliminary issue as regards its jurisdiction to entertain the suit. By the order dated 29th October, 2009, the preliminary issue was answered against the applicant and dismissed the suit. The said order is impugned in the present Civil Revision Application.

(3.) MR. P.V. Sagdeo, the learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Greater Bombay case (supra) submits that the Securitisation Act does not apply to the co-operative banks. Mr. A.M.Ghare, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 bank, on the other hand, submits that the question that had come up before the Apex Court in Greater Bombay case was about availability of remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the R.D.B. Act") to the co-operative banks covered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The question before the Apex Court in the said case was not about remedies under the Securitisation Act and therefore, the decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that this aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of our High Court in Khaja Industries and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2008 (2) Bom.C.R. 860. The Division Bench after extensive consideration of the question, observes as follows :