1 17 ao 824.10.doc srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 824 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1032 OF 2010 Mr. Chand Jagat Narayan Khanna & Anr. ....Appellants Versus The Oriental Commerce Bank & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. B.S. Nayak i/b Mr. Sagar V Kasar for Appellants. Mr. Prasad Das i/b M/s Goenka Law Associates for Respondents No.2. CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : 2ND AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1 This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, refusing ad interim relief to the Appellant on his Notice of Motion and making the Notice of Motion returnable on 13 th August, 2010. The Appellant seems to have taken loan for the purpose of a barge. According to the Appellants, his residential flat was not in fact mortgaged with the Bank. However, since the outstanding recoverable by 2 17 ao 824.10.doc the Bank were to the tune of Rs.30,19,206.75 paise. On 22 nd May, 2010 the Respondent Bank sought to initiate action under section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Appellant said to have sent a reply on 31 st May, 2010 and the said reply was not considered by the Bank. For this purpose the Appellant relied on judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.R.Gavai Enterprises vs. Vidarbha Urban Co- operative Bank Limited, Akola and another reported in 2004 (4) Mah.L.J. 707. It is not that the Bank had not considered the reply filed. In fact on 18 th June, 2010 the Bank responded to the Appellants reply and called upon the Applicant to pay the entire dues. 2 The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant had claimed one time settlement. This cannot be a matter of right and cannot justify grant of injunction. 3 The learned counsel next submitted relying on the judgment Mardia Chemicals Limited Etc., vs. Union of India and Ors. reported at 3 17 ao 824.10.doc 2004 (4) SCC 311, that the Civil Courts still had jurisdiction to entertain the prayer for injunction since the action of the secured creditor was fraudulent. Prima facie there appears nothing fraudulent in the action of the Respondent-Bank and therefore the learned Judge was not in error in refusing ad interim relief. The Appeal from Order and the Civil Application therefore stand dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)