PNP 1 WP9993-24.6.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9993 OF 2009 Union Bank of India ..Petitioner. versus Superintendent State Excise Department, Thane and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Ashish Kamath with Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi i/b Ms. Sabeena Mahadik for the Petitioner. Mr. V.A. Sonpal, A Panel counsel for Respondents 1 to 3. ‘ ’ ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 24 June 2011. P.C. : This Petition was filed by the Union of India in order to challenge the action of the Superintendent of State Excise of sealing and attaching the factory and/or mortgaged premises of the Third Respondent. Directions were sought to the Excise Department to lift the attachment and sealing of the factory and/or the mortgaged premises situated at Palghar. The Petitioner is a secured creditor and had instituted proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of its dues. The apprehension of the Petitioner was that as a result of the action of the State Excise Department, the security interest of the Petitioner was likely to be prejudiced. The Petitioner obtained a recovery certificate in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal pursuant to the judgment dated 11 October 2010. PNP 2 WP9993-24.6.sxw In the meantime, when this Petition came up for hearing, the Court was informed on 27 August 2010 that the bank and the borrower were in the process of settling the dispute. This statement was reiterated before the Court on 1 December 2010 by counsel appearing on behalf of the borrower. On 2 February 2011 the Fourth Respondent undertook to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lacs before this Court to establish their bona fides and the Court recorded that in the meantime, it would be open to the parties to negotiate on a settlement. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that Consent Terms were arrived at between the parties on 16 May 2011 which were filed before the Recovery Officer. The Consent Terms were taken on record by the Recovery Officer on 13 June 2011. By his order the Recovery Officer observed that the bank would be at liberty to produce the Consent Terms before this Court so as to enable the Petitioner to collect the amount of Rs.10 lacs deposited by the borrower. On 5 May 2011 when the proceedings cam up before the Division Bench counsel for the parties had informed the Court that the Consent Terms will be produced before the Tribunal and the Court observed that if that was done, the amount which was deposited before this Court can be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It was thereafter that the Consent Terms were filed on the record of the recovery proceedings. A copy of the Consent Terms and the order of the Recovery Officer dated 13 June 2011 are placed on the record of these proceedings. Since the dispute insofar as the Petitioner is concerned has been settled, the Petitioner does not now seek to press the challenge to the proceedings which have been initiated by the State Excise Department. However, in terms of the agreement which has been arrived at between the Petitioner and the PNP 3 WP9993-24.6.sxw borrower before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as reflected in the Consent Terms, leave is granted to the Petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.10 lacs deposited before this Court. The Petitioner is being permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.10 lacs deposited before this Court directly without the amount being transferred to the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal since the Court was informed that there is a vacancy in the office of the Recovery Officer and the disbursal of the amount would be delayed, if that procedure were to be adopted. Since the dispute has been settled between the Petitioner and the borrower, we see no impediment in permitting the withdrawal of the amount by the Petitioner. The Registrar - Judicial is directed to disburse to the Petitioner the amount of Rs.10 lacs deposited in this Court in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench dated 2 February 2011. The Petition is accordingly disposed of, since no other directions are sought. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta J.)