1 W.P.No.4631.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4631 OF 2009 The Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited (Incorporating the Vidarbha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Regional Office, At Aurangabad. Through it’s Deputy Chief Officer and Authorized Officer, Shri Pandit Keshavrao Kalyan Age 51 years,Occup. Service as Deputy Chief Officer, R/o Adinath Nagar, Garkheda Parisar,Aurangabad District Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Mahatma Phule Nagar, Ta.Kannad, District Aurangabad. Through it’s Managing Director, 2. The Tahsildar, Kannad. Tq.Kannad,Dist.Aurangabad. 3. Laxmibai Uttam Suratkar, Age 68 years,Occup. Nil R/o Kankavatinagar Near Sugar Factory Kannad, Tq.Kannad,District Aurangabad. 4. Keru Kisan Dhanedhar, Age 66 years,Occup. retired R/o Kankavatinagar Near Sugar Factory Kannad, Tq.Kannad,District Aurangabad. 2 W.P.No.4631.09 5. Damu S/o Narayan Dive, Age 65 years,Occup. retired R/o Kankavatinagar Near Sugar Factory Kannad, Tq.Kannad,District Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. P.S.Pawar,Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 Shri. V.H.Dighe,A.G.P.for respondent No.2. Shri Ambar S.Barlota,Advocate for respondent No. 3 to 5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 26TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER: NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of attachment of sugar bags passed by the respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Kannad, dated 19.06.2009, consequent to the recovery Certificate issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 3 W.P.No.4631.09 3. Mr.Dhorde, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the petitioner-Bank advanced the loan to the respondent No.1-Sugar factory. The property of the respondent-sugar factory is under attachment. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner for recovery of their dues. By order dated 15.02.2002, the Assistant Labour Commissioner had allowed the application and directed the respondent No.1-Sugar Factory to pay the amount. 4. Mr.Dhorde, learned counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) and others Vs. SICOM Ltd and another, (2) Tata Metaliks Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2008(4) Bombay C.R. 853 and (3) Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd and others Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others reported in 2010(1) Bombay 4 W.P.No.4631.09 C.R.255. 4. Mr.Barlota, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that in the light of section 39 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Hereinafter referred to as “Securitisation Act”), unless and until the dues of the petitioner are cleared first, the order of attachment passed by Tahsildar can not be interfered with. The learned counsel submits that the dues of the employees have not been paid. In the alternative, counsel submits that even if the petitioner takes further steps consequent to the attachment under the provisions of Securitisation Act, the petitioner be directed to pay the dues of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 first, before appropriating the amount towards sale proceeds to its account. 5. We have perused the provisions of Section 39 of the Securitisation Act. We find that the said 5 W.P.No.4631.09 provision is applicable to the Companies Act. In view of the said provisions and the judgment cited supra, we are of the opinion that the petitioner being secured creditor is entitled to enforce its rights envisaged under Securitisation Act. 6. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that Sugar Factory is closed and it is under attachment of the petitioner. 7. In the light of the facts of this case and the settled position in law, we are of the opinion that the order of attachment passed by the respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Kannad, dated 19.06.2009 consequent to the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. The impugned order of attachment of sugar bags passed by the respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Kannad, dated 19.06.2009 consequent to the 6 W.P.No.4631.09 recovery Certificate issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, is quashed and set aside. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. 10. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are at liberty to resort to appropriate alternative remedy as permission in law, in case cause of action arise. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK