TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P. Arolkar, Additional Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rupa Banaulikar, Advocate ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Sonak, J) Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe with Ms. K. Govenkar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. P. Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 and Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Rupa Banaulikar for Respondent No.4. 2. At the request of Mr. Bhobe, leave is granted to sue Respondent No.4 through its Liquidator Daulat Hawaldar. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Ms. Banaulikar states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the Liquidator. 4. The main challenge in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4/Liquidator submits that the said premises were mortgaged in favour of Respondent No.4- Bank by Respondent No.5 to secure a term loan. He pointed out that Respondent No.5 defaulted and on 25th October 2005 a notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 calling upon the Respondent No.5 to pay a sum of Rs. 37,65,169.42 as of 30th September 2005 together with interest and costs. There was no compliance by Respondent No.5 and therefore the Respondent No.4-Bank was entitled to take steps under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which it has taken in the present matter. 7. Mr. Mulgaonkar pointed out that a prior mortgage cannot be defeated by the Petitioners based on subsequent agreemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is taking one of the measures, as contemplated by Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. There is also no dispute that as against the measures under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, any person, including the borrower, if aggrieved by any of the measures under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by the secured creditor, can make an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) within 45 days from the date on which such measures have been taken. The application to be made under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is virtually like an original proceeding and the DRT, has sufficient powers to examine all issues, including the issue as to whether the property in question is indeed a sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court, held as follows:- "18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another, (1997) 6 SCC 450, observing: "32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ether the provisionsof the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will apply to the Co-operative Banks. Even that issue has now been settled and the Petitioners did not contend that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 do not apply to the Cooperative Banks like the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank of Goa Ltd. 15. Mr. Bhobe then submitted that the interim relief made bythis Court on 3rd November 2014 may be continued for at least six months since the DRT is located in Mumbai and during these times, it will not be easily possible for the Petitioners to move the DRT and obtain interim orders. 16. Now that the interim orders were operating since 3rd November 2014, we see no difficulty, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case to extend such interim ....