Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Thou Managing Director v. The Managing Director, Bank Of India And ORS

by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2025.11.29 17:15:04 +0530 VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

varsha CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2847 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3997 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7513 OF 2024 Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd through Managing Director ... Applicant/Petitioner vs.

The Managing Director, Bank of India and Ors ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3809 OF 2018 Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd through Managing Director ... Applicant/Petitioner vs.

Bank of India through its C.A. Holder ... Respondent Mr. Prakash Yadav, Petitioner in person.

Mr. Ananat B. Shinde, for Respondent No.1.

Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha i/b. A.A. Ansari for Respondent No.2. Mr. Ameya Borwankar, for Respondent No.7 in WP/2847/22. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 20th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER:

Page no. 1 of 4

1.

This petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the executing court on 18th February 2021, dismissing the application under Exhibit 120 filed by the petitioner in darkhast proceeding No. 1741 of 2012. In the said application, the petitioner prayed for a declaration that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court be declared as a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law for being obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of vital facts. The petitioner further prayed that the execution proceedings of the Award, Petition No. 28 of 2012, dated 12th September 2012, passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Pune, be continued. This application is rightly rejected by the executing court. 2.

The award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council is set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 5th December 2017. A separate Writ Petition No. 9159 of 2022, filed by the petitioner to challenge the separate order passed in the same execution proceedings, is disposed of by this court by passing a separate order today.

3.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, by order dated 5th December 2017, has issued the following directions in paragraph no. 15, which reads as under:

"15.

The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is Page no. 2 of 4

allowed. The appellant Bank is free to recover the amount of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- withdrawn by the first respondent after adjusting the payments due upto 24.07.2008. The bank is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 93,22,590/- along with accrued interest. So far as the charges towards security services payable to the first respondent after 24.07.2008, liberty is granted to the first respondent to proceed against the auction purchasers-respondents No. 2 and 3 in accordance with law. No order as to costs."

4.

This court has disposed of the connected Writ Petition No. 9159 of 2022 by granting liberty to the petitioner and the bank to file an appropriate application before the DRT.

5.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court confirming the award is also set aside. The petitioner submits that for raising similar grounds, he also filed the review petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the review petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court is dismissed. Hence, I see no reason to examine the grounds raised in this petition.

6.

I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, warranting the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order . Page no. 3 of 4

7.

The Writ Petition is therefore rejected.

8.

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the pending interim applications are disposed of as infructuous.

(GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 4 of 4