1 WP219/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.219 OF 2011 M/s Sandesh Projects Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. And others ...Respondents Mr Mayur Khandeparkar i/b Mr S.N. Fadia for Petitioners. Ms Varsha Palav for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr Milind Jadhav i/b M/s SRM Law Associates for Respondent No.4. Managing Director of Respondent No.1 present. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 20TH APRIL 2011. 2 WP219/11 P.C. :- 1] The Managing Director of respondent No.1 is present in Court. He states that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have decided to grant time to respondent No.4 till today to deposit the balance bid amount with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. He states that if that amount is deposited by the respondent No.4, their bid will stand accepted finally. 2] The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 informs us that the respondent No.4 has already deposited Rs.2,00,00,000/- with the respondent No.1  Bank and the balance amount would be deposited during the course of the day. The statement is accepted. It is thus obvious that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are accepting the bid of respondent No.4. In our opinion, therefore, if according to the petitioners, there is any illegality involved in the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, their remedy is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the 3 WP219/11 Securitisation Act 2002. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the order of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of granting time to the respondent No.4 to deposit balance amount beyond 30 days is without authority and contrary to the tender conditions and therefore, according to him, he should not be driven to exhaust alternate remedy and this petition should be entertained. In our opinion, the submission is not sound because the order is within the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2  Recovery Officer though that order may be wrong or contrary to the tender conditions. In our opinion, as there is a remedy provided by the Securitisation Act, it will not be proper for this Court to entertain the petition. Petition is therefore disposed off. It is however clarified that the petitioners shall be at liberty to adopt such remedies as may be available to them against the orders which are impugned in the petition as also the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 which is referred to in the statements made on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. All the contentions 4 WP219/11 available to both the sides are kept open. 3] The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Ms Varsha Palav has made a grievance about an observation made by us in paragraph 2 of our order dated 13th April 2011. We have observed thus :- So far as the Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is concerned, the performance of the Advocate is most unsatisfactory. That observation we have made most reluctantly because we were not getting required assistance from the learned Advocate who is representing the Apex Bank in co-operative sector of the State. When the petition came before us, after hearing the learned counsel for some time, we made it clear to him that as the remedy under Securitisation Act is available to him, we do not propose to interfere at this stage. The learned 5 WP219/11 counsel for petitioners, who is one of the bidders at the auction of the property, submitted that according to the terms on which auction was held, the balance amount of consideration was to be deposited by the highest bidder within a period of 30 days and that there is no power vested in anybody to grant extension of time. He invited our attention to Clause (21) of the terms of the tender. It reads as under: 21. Under no circumstances time period as stipulated in the tender will be extended. If the Tenderer submits as application for extension with valid reasons, Authorised Officer, if feels genuine, may recommend the proposal to Head Office, Hon ble Executive Committee/Hon ble Loan Committee may approve the request for extension maximum for a period of 30 days by charging interest at the rate of 18% on the amount under no circumstances extension more than 30 days will be allowed. 6 WP219/11 He submitted that though the highest bidder has not deposited the amount within time, the Recovery Officer is not making any order cancelling the bid and re-advertising the property. He submitted that if the Recovery Officer in view of the above quoted term decides not to grant any extension of time, it would not be necessary for him to approach any Court or Tribunal, because if the bid of the highest bidder - respondent No.4 is rejected because of his failure to deposit the amount within the time allowed by the tender condition, fresh bid would be called. On this submission being made, we wanted to know from the learned counsel appearing for the Recovery Officer and the Bank i.e. respondents Nos. 1 & 2 as to what is the decision taken by respondents Nos. 1 & 2 in relation to bid of the respondent No.4. We wanted to know whether they have decided to grant extension of time to deposit the money to the respondent No.4 or they have decided not to do so. 7 WP219/11 4] The learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 adopted a peculiar approach and was not in a position to give us any information. Therefore, we asked the learned counsel to keep the Recovery Officer present in Court and adjourned the matter for that purpose. On the adjourned date one Officer of the respondent No.1- Bank remained present. When we inquired from him as to what decision is taken regarding the bid of the respondent No.4, he informed us that he does not know anything because now he is not the Recovery Officer. If he was not the Recovery Officer, why he was kept present we do not know. In this situation, we asked the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to keep the Officer, who is presently working as Recovery Officer, present in Court and adjourned the matter. On the adjourned date, the Recovery Officer Mr.V.B.Kadam remained present. We tried to ascertain from him as to whether extension being granted to the respondent No.4 or not. He was also not in a position to tell us anything, except to say that he is awaiting orders. We therefore, asked him 8 WP219/11 to take instructions and again adjourned the matter. On the adjourned date i.e. on 13th April, 2011 Mr.V.B.Kadam remained absent. In this situation, therefore, we had no option but to summon the Managing Director of the respondent No.1-Bank. Had we been properly assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2, it was really not necessary for us to summon the Managing Director of the respondent No.1 - Bank. But as we were facing this situation, we had to make an order asking the Managing Director to remain present in Court. As he is very high ranking Officer, we had to give reasons why we are asking him to remain present and therefore, in our order dated 13th April, 2011 we observed that we are asking the Managing Director to remain present, because the performance of the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 is unsatisfactory. Those observations were, thus, made by us because of an impression gained by us from the conduct of the learned counsel that the learned counsel was not either in a position to assist the Court or did not deliberately want to 9 WP219/11 assist the Court. If according to the learned counsel we were not justified in making such observation, she is free to adopt appropriate remedy because that is an observation made in a judicial order by the Court. At this stage, a request is made on behalf of the petitioners that as the petitioners propose to adopt remedy that is available to them under law, the Recovery Officer should be directed not to deliver possession of the property to the respondent No.4 for a period of two weeks from today. The request is opposed on behalf of the respondent No.4. In our opinion, as there is remedy available to the petitioners under the law, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the respondent No.2 not to deliver possession of the property though the transaction is completed by the respondent No.4, for a period of two weeks from today. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way either of the respondent No.4 or the respondent No.2 from completing all other formalities including execution 10 WP219/11 of conveyance. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )