AJAY SHYAMKANT CHAUDHARY Vs. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 3375 of 2003 is filed by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 3, and M/s. Loyal Engineering Private Limited, respondent No. 4, from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, creating third party right or in any manner dealing with the land situate at Theregaon, Mulshi, Pune, bearing Survey No. 30, Hissa Nos. 26-D, 28-A, 28-B, 29-A, 29-B, 31-A, 31-B, 32, 33 and 20-B or any pat thereof. A prayer is also made restraining Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, respondent No. 1 and Special Recovery Officer, respondent No. 2, from handing over possession of the above land to respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that in 1998, they applied for loan to respondent No. 1-Bank. The first respondent sanctioned loan of Rs. 53 lakhs under various heads against security of two residential flats belonging to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners by way of security created mortgage of the above flats. No other property, however, was offered as security nor a mortgage was created. The petitioners were not able to repay the loan. A suit, therefore, came to be instituted by the first respondent, which was subsequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). On April 10, 2003, the Special Recovery Officer of respondent No. 1 auctioned property belonging to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 which was not mortgaged with the first respondent-bank. On May 9, 2003, petitioners filed an application for setting aside illegal sale. A notice was issued to the Bank, pursuant to which the Bank appeared and the matter was adjourned to 26th May, 2003. Before that, however, on 12th May, 2003, the second respondent issued a certificate of sale by making a false statement that no application for setting aside of sale was made. The sale was confirmed by respondent No. 2 in collusion with other respondents. In the circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) THE petition was filed on May 15, 2003. It was placed for admission hearing on May, 19, 2003, before the learned Vacation Judge. A statement was made on that day by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that they had purchased the land in question by depositing with the respondent-Bank a sum of Rupees One Crore and odd and have also taken over possession. A further statement was made that those respondents will not create third partys right in the land. Hence, the matter was ordered to be placed on Board on 9th June, 2003.