- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has moved the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the case concerning the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank (PMC Bank) crisis.
RBI has challenged the High Court's order pertaining to the directions for sale of the mortgaged property. RBI says that the PIL in which the order was passed did not make banking regulator a party in the matter. The order by the High Court, thus, was passed without hearing the RBI, it is claimed.
In an attempt to revive PMC Bank, RBI had taken various measures, including appointment of an administrator in September 2019. These steps were allegedly not brought to the Court's notice. This prompted the RBI to approach the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the High Court's judgment.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi mentioned the case for urgent hearing today before the Bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant. The Court directed Dwivedi to mention the case before the mentioning Registrar.
The Apex Court had earlier stayed specific directions of the High Court pertaining to release of the main accused in the matter from the Arthur road prison.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had approached the Supreme Court in January, challenging the Bombay High Court order one day after it was passed. The High Court had directed for the two accused persons to be released from the Arthur Jail and to be kept in their own residence to enable disposal of their properties.
The Bombay High Court had earlier appointed a three-member committee headed by retired High Court Judge, Justice S Radhakrishnan for the speedy disposal and auction of Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) assets and the distribution of such proceeds on priority to depositors of the crisis-hit PMC Bank.
Moreover, to ensure cooperation with the Committee, the Court also directed Rakesh and Sarang Wadhawan (the promoters of HDIL) to be shifted from Arthur Road jail to their Bandra residence, where they will be in the custody of two guards each until further orders. The guards had been further directed to ensure that the respondents are not taken outside the jurisdiction of the High Court.