Onkar Sakhar Karkhana Pvt Ltd Thr Its Authorized Representative Sagar Dinkar Martande v. The Union Of India Through The Secretary And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:4811-DB 6 WP NO. 1461 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1461 OF 2025 ONKAR SAKHAR KARKHANA PVT LTD THR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SAGAR DINKAR MARTANDE

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate i/by. Mr. G. L. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Atul Mishra Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P. T. Thorat & Mr. S. S. Kotkar ...

CORAM

:

MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , JJ.

DATE : 18.02.2025 PER COURT :

.

Mr. Thorat submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No. 3 - the Borrower.

2.

Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 - Union Bank of India, the lead bank, places a praecipe on record. 3.

It is a matter whereby an interested party, who has entered into a private treaty with the secured creditors, has been seeking extension of time to deposit remainder 75% and has been taking exception to the communication whereby it was notified that unless remainder was paid by a stipulated date, the sale would be cancelled.

1/2

6 WP NO. 1461 OF 2025 4.

This praecipe submitted by respondent No. 2 - the lead bank, inter alia, records that a meeting of JLM was convened on 03.02.2025, was attended by all the three banks except the National Co-operative Development Corporation (NCDC). It is annexed with minutes of the meeting resolving to extend the time granted for depositing balance 75%. It also mentions about having actually received the entire balance by 15.02.2025.

5.

We have heard the learned senior counsel and the learned counsels.

6.

In light of the fact that the parties are already before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, which inter alia, after hearing all the parties, had permitted handing over of the sugar factory and further directed that the sale should not be confirmed without its permission, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to solicit appropriate order from the Debt Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law.

7.

The writ petition is disposed of.

8.

The parties are directed to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) jhs/ 2/2