1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 467 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 467 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 467 OF 2009 Shashi Gupta ... Petitioner Shashi Gupta ... Petitioner Shashi Gupta ... Petitioner Vs. Vs. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents The Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents The Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Mathes Nedumpara i/b. Ms. J.S.Ostwal for the Mr. Mathes Nedumpara i/b. Ms. J.S.Ostwal for the Mr. Mathes Nedumpara i/b. Ms. J.S.Ostwal for the petitioner. petitioner. petitioner. Mr. R.R.Gade i/b. R.R.Gade & Associates for respondent Mr. R.R.Gade i/b. R.R.Gade & Associates for respondent Mr. R.R.Gade i/b. R.R.Gade & Associates for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Nos. 2 & 3. Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2009. DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2009. DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for 1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for 1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. the parties. the parties. 2 2. The primary contention raised before us is that 2. The primary contention raised before us is that 2. The primary contention raised before us is that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition which was the petitioner had earlier filed a petition which was the petitioner had earlier filed a petition which was disposed of by an order passed by a Division Bench of disposed of by an order passed by a Division Bench of disposed of by an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 25th November,2008 in Writ Petition this Court on 25th November,2008 in Writ Petition this Court on 25th November,2008 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2417 of 2008. The same has not been (Lodging) No.2417 of 2008. The same has not been (Lodging) No.2417 of 2008. The same has not been complied with by the Respondent-Bank and they have not complied with by the Respondent-Bank and they have not complied with by the Respondent-Bank and they have not produced the documents before the Tribunal. This produced the documents before the Tribunal. This produced the documents before the Tribunal. This submission is opposed on behalf of the Bank when it is submission is opposed on behalf of the Bank when it is submission is opposed on behalf of the Bank when it is argued that the Bank had even written a letter argued that the Bank had even written a letter argued that the Bank had even written a letter requesting the petitioner to inspect the documents, but requesting the petitioner to inspect the documents, but requesting the petitioner to inspect the documents, but the petitioner did not turn up for inspecting the the petitioner did not turn up for inspecting the the petitioner did not turn up for inspecting the documents. It is further averred that the Bank has not documents. It is further averred that the Bank has not documents. It is further averred that the Bank has not violated the order of the Court dated 25th November, violated the order of the Court dated 25th November, violated the order of the Court dated 25th November, 2008 and they have filed a reply to the Application of 2008 and they have filed a reply to the Application of 2008 and they have filed a reply to the Application of the petitioner, being Securitisation Application No.20 the petitioner, being Securitisation Application No.20 the petitioner, being Securitisation Application No.20 of 2008 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, of 2008 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, of 2008 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai and have annexed as Exhibit "1", among others, Mumbai and have annexed as Exhibit "1", among others, Mumbai and have annexed as Exhibit "1", among others, the principal documents on which they propose to rely. the principal documents on which they propose to rely. the principal documents on which they propose to rely. The Bank claims that the title documents were submitted The Bank claims that the title documents were submitted The Bank claims that the title documents were submitted by this document which is alleged to be signed by the by this document which is alleged to be signed by the by this document which is alleged to be signed by the petitioner. This however, is again disputed by the petitioner. This however, is again disputed by the petitioner. This however, is again disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Be that learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Be that learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is not for this Court to examine the merit as it may, it is not for this Court to examine the merit as it may, it is not for this Court to examine the merit 3 or otherwise of this contention. It is appropriate for or otherwise of this contention. It is appropriate for or otherwise of this contention. It is appropriate for the petitioner to argue the matter before the Tribunal the petitioner to argue the matter before the Tribunal the petitioner to argue the matter before the Tribunal which is stated to be fixed today and place all the which is stated to be fixed today and place all the which is stated to be fixed today and place all the contentions with regard to Exhibit "1", including that contentions with regard to Exhibit "1", including that contentions with regard to Exhibit "1", including that it is not signed by the petitioner as argued and that it it is not signed by the petitioner as argued and that it it is not signed by the petitioner as argued and that it is not a document in the eye of law. The petitioner is not a document in the eye of law. The petitioner is not a document in the eye of law. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the Tribunal during the course of argument of the case. We Tribunal during the course of argument of the case. We Tribunal during the course of argument of the case. We do hope the Tribunal would hear the petitioner and pass do hope the Tribunal would hear the petitioner and pass do hope the Tribunal would hear the petitioner and pass orders. orders. orders. 3. With these observations, the Petition is 3. With these observations, the Petition is 3. With these observations, the Petition is disposed of. disposed of. disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.