1 wp1165.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 2011 DSL Enterprises Private Limited (Successor in Interest of Datar Switchgear Limited) & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Successor in interest of the erstwhile Nasik Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Limited). : Respondent .... Mr.Chirag Balsara with Ms Swati Deshpande i/b. Res Legal for the petitioners. Mr.Anwar Landge i/b. Mr.Harshad V. Bhadbhade for the respondent. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 10, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Nasik, in Dispute No.792/2010 filed by the petitioners whereby the said dispute came to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The petitioners are also seeking a direction to the Judge, Co-operative Court, to comply with the 2 wp1165.11 judgement and order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4886 of 2008 and implement the Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR in the case of Datar Switchgear Limited dated 5.12.2006. The petitioners are also seeking a direction to the Co-operative Court to hear and dispose of ABN Case No.1118 of 2002, ABN Case No.733 of 2002 and ABN Case No.792 of 2010 simultaneously. 3. The petitioners are further seeking a direction to compel the Sarasawat Co-operative Bank to discharge its obligations stipulated in the Scheme sanctioned by BIFR in respect of M/s.Datar Switchgear Limited on 5.12.2006. 4. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that BIFR has sanctioned the Scheme in question on 5.12.2006. The appellate Authority i.e. AAIFR approved the same vide order dated 24.7.2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-Bank filed Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court which was disposed of vide judgement and order dated 31.10.2007 against which Civil Appeal No.4886 of 2008 was filed by Larsen & Toubro Limited before the Apex Court which came to be disposed of on 4.8.2008 and decree was drawn vide order dated 4.8.2008. 3 wp1165.11 5. On the back-drop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the Scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR, approved by the Appellate Authority and finally held to be binding on all vide judgement and order of the Apex Court dated 4.8.2008. The relevant potion of the said judgement reads thus:- “In the instant case, the directions mentioned in para 20 are erroneous for the simple reason that the appellant has deposited the full amount of Rs.24 crores and on such deposit it was not open to the High Court to give directions to the appellant not to deal with the property during the pendency of the Scheme. As stated, the appellant had paid the full consideration. The validity of the Scheme was challenged. The High Court has rejected the objections raised by respondent no.1 herein. Therefore, there was no reason for the High Court to restrain the appellant herein from dealing with the property, particularly, when the appellant had paid the full consideration and that it had taken over the workmen numbering 157. By putting the 4 wp1165.11 said condition we are of the view that the High Court's impugned order amounts to alteration of the Scheme approved by BIFR, inasmuch as the Scheme itself states that the property shall be handed over to the buyer free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.” The decree was drawn in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in which it is specifically observed thus:- “Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that this ORDER be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned; WITNESS the Hon’ble Shri Konakuppakattil Gopinathan Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India, at the Supreme Court, New Delhi, dated this the 4th day of August, 2008.” 5 wp1165.11 6. In this background, we would like to express that there is no question or issue required to be adjudicated upon by this Court in the present Writ Petition as to whether the Scheme which is sanctioned by the BIFR and approved by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Apex Court whether binding or not on the petitioners, the respondent-Bank and others. On the other hand, it is evident that the Scheme is not only binding on the petitioners, the respondent-Bank and all others, but the same is required to be followed by the petitioners, the respondent-Bank and all others in letter and spirit, since it is binding on all of them. All those who are bound by the Scheme are required to discharge their duties and obligations flowing from the said Scheme and, therefore, so far as the prayers made by the petitioners in this regard in the present petition are concerned, we have no hesitation to hold that the Scheme framed by the BIFR dated 5.12.2006 is binding on the petitioners, the respondent-Bank and all others. 7. So far as the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Judge, Co- operative Court, is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court that the contentions raised by the petitioners in respect of the said order may kindly be kept open with liberty to challenge the said order before the Co-operative Appellate Court. We grant the 6 wp1165.11 request of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the contentions raised in the petition in respect of the order dated 24.10.2010 passed by the Co-operative Court are kept open with liberty as prayed for. 8. So far as ABN Case No.1118 of 2002 and ABN Case No.733 of 2002 pending before the Co-operative Court, filed by the respondent- Bank are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has no objection for issuance of direction to the Co-operative Court to dispose of these disputes, as expeditiously as possible, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the counsel for the parties are agreeable for direction to the Co-operative Court to dispose of these disputes expeditiously, we hereby direct the Co-operative Court to dispose of these disputes, as far as possible, simultaneously within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. 9. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)