C/SCA/12628/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12628 of 2022 =================================================== M/S ARIHANT DESIGNER JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus
AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE
BANK)
=================================================== Appearance:
RITESH D PATADIA(6460) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 URVESH K. GOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ===================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 10/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) Your lordships may be pleased to admit the said petition.
(B) Your lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus and be pleased to quash and set aside the SARFAESI Measures initiated by the Respondent bank herein AND quash and set aside impugned sale notice dated 18/06/2022.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIP MAY be pleased to direct the respondent bank not to take any further SARFAESI measures.
(D) Your lordships may be pleased to hold that the conduct of the respondent bank is willful breach of the order dated
Page 1 of 3
04/05/2022 passed in SCA/8843/2022 by Hon'ble court and refer the said matter to the concern court for proceedings of contempt of court against the Authorised officer of the bank.
(E) YOUR LORDSHIP MAY be pleased to direct the respondent bank not to take any coercive steps qua the properties in question.
(F) Costs of this petition are awarded.
(G) Any other relief, order or direction which may be just, fit, proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the petition."
2. While issuing Notice on 07.07.2022, this Court passed the following order:
"1. Heard Mr. Ritesh Patadia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Ritesh Patadia, learned advocate submitted that by order dated 04.05.2022, the petition came to be withdrawn on the statement made by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank that no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent-Bank against the petitioners till either the charge of DRT-I is handed over to the Presiding Officer to the DRTII or the Presiding Officer of the DRT-I takes the charge. It was further submitted that the respondent - Bank shall also issue notice of fifteen days to the petitioners before taking any action. Mr. Ritesh Patadia, learned advocat further submitted that the impugned notice issued by the respondent bank dated 18.06.2022 is E- Auction Sale Notice and that the auction would be held of the subject property on 08.07.2022. The said notice is duly produced at page 47.
3. Mr. Ritesh Patadia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2022, the Bank has issued auction notice dated
Page 2 of 3
18.06.2022, which is produced at page 47, which is in violation of the statement made by the respondent - Bank in earlier proceedings i.e. Special Civil Application No.8843 of
2022.
4. In view of above, issue NOTICE making it returnable on
03.08.2022.
5. In the meantime, the impugned notice dated 18.06.2022 is directed to remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Direct service is permitted."
3. The DRT-I is available and Securitization Application No. 173 of 2022 has already been filed by the present petitioners and the same is pending adjudication before the DRT.
4. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition and the present petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
Pradhyuman
Page 3 of 3
Comments