SHIVANGI Vs. GREATER BOMBAY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties.

(2.) BEFORE I deal with the main matter, I shall refer to the derivative proceedings which are also being disposed of by this order. Notice of Motion No.407 of 2005 is filed by Oman International Bank SAOG praying for permission to intervene in the present Writ Petition. The said Bank claims that it has charge and claim in respect of the property in question. The Counsel appearing for the said Applicant stated across the Bar that the said Bank has already preferred proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its claim amount. For the nature of proceedings that are pending before this Court, the intervener cannot ask for relief higher than the one claimed by the Petitioners before this Court. Counsel for the Applicant Bank submits that the Applicant Bank would be satisfied if this Court were to set-aside the sale, in the event it was to be held that there is violation of any Rules. As mentioned earlier, the Applicant Bank has chosen only to be intervener in the present proceedings and at best, can claim only through the Petitioners. For that reason, I had permitted the Counsel for the Applicant to address the Court who chose to take stand as recorded earlier.

(3.) REVERTING to the main matter, this Petition involves chequered history. It is not necessary to burden this Judgment with all the events that have unfolded from the stage of Petitioners' executing Bank Guarantees as Directors of the Company to facilitate the Company to avail of loan advance from the Respondent No.1 Bank. It is common ground that the Respondent No.1 Bank is a Cooperative Bank, which is entitled to pursue remedy for recovery of its dues as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Respondent No.1 Bank initiated such proceedings against the principal borrower Company as well as the Petitioners herein and others. The Petitioners were Directors of the said Company when the loan facility was availed. The Petitioners claim to have resigned as Directors. The Competent Authority in the Recovery proceedings overturned the stand taken by the Petitioners that they were not liable to be proceeded for recovery against the principal borrower. On that finding, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to pass order in exercise of powers under Section 101 of the Act on 30th August 2001. That order was carried in Appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar unsuccessfully. The Divisional Joint Registrar was pleased to uphold the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on the basis of which Recovery Certificate came to be issued by order dated 10th December 2001. That order was confirmed in Writ Petition No.26 of 2002 on account of dismissal of the said Writ Petition due to non-compliance of the conditional order. The order passed by the Single Judge in the said Writ Petition was upheld by the Division Bench with some modification. However, even the conditional order of the Division Bench dated 23rd April 2002 in Letters Patent Appeal arising out of Writ Petition No.26 of 2002 was not complied with, for which reason, the same stood dismissed. The fact that the order dated 30th August 2001 passed by the Assistant Registrar became final, has been fairly accepted by the Advocate for the Petitioners.