State Bank Of India Thr. Representative Milind Sadashiv Hardikar And ANR v. Uttam Ramdas Mhetre And ORS
41-PIL.177.2022 jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 177 OF 2022 Uttam Ramdas Mhetre } Petitioner
Versus
The Official Liquidator & Anr.
} Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18521 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 177 OF 2022 Asset Reconstruction Company } (India) Limited.
} Applicant In the matter between Uttam Ramdas Mhetre } Petitioner
Versus
The Official Liquidator & Anr.
} Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18522 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 177 OF 2022 State Bank of India and Anr.
} Applicant In the matter between Uttam Ramdas Mhetre } Petitioner
Versus
The Official Liquidator & Anr.
} Respondents AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18520 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 177 OF 2022 The Official Liquidator } Applicant In the matter between Uttam Ramdas Mhetre } Petitioner
Versus
The Official Liquidator & Anr.
} Respondents SALUNKE J V by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.19 10:52:59 +0530
41-PIL.177.2022 Mr. Yatin Malvankar for the petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State.
Mr. Haris A. Khan i/b. Mr. Ajinkya Kurudkar for the applicant in IA/18522/2022.
Mr. Santosh Budhwani i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal and Co. for the applicant in IA/18521/2022.
Mr.
Ashish Pyasi i/b.
Dhir and Dhir Associates for respondents 1 and 2.
CORAM:
S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE:
JANUARY 17, 2023 P.C.:
Interim Application Nos. 18521 & 18522 of 2022: 1.
The learned advocates for the applicants submit that the applicants are the secured creditors of the respondent no. 2. The property of the respondent no. 2 is the subject matter of the PIL petition.
2.
The learned advocate for the original petitioner opposes the applications and submits that the applicants are not the necessary parties.
3.
The applicants claim to be the secured creditors. The assets of the respondent no. 2 are secured according to the applicants. 4.
In view of that, the applicants would be the necessary parties. The applications as such are allowed. The original petitioner shall array the applicants as party respondents. 5.
Both the interim applications are disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)