Disposed

M/S. Silver Line Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2007CAW/12/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a Civil Application filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside a sale under Rule 107(13). The Court granted liberty to make an appropriate application before the Sale Officer, clarified that the auction purchaser must be heard, and extended the time for depositing Rs. 26,00,000/- until January 15, 2007.

What did the court decide?

Clarification granted that the application shall not be rejected due to shortfall if the amount is deposited by January 15, 2007; liberty granted to make application before Sale Officer.

M/S. Silver Line Enterprises Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7846 OF 2006

¶4

M/s.Silver Line Enterprizes..Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr.Vishal Ghosalkar, advocate for the petitioner
Smt.V.S.Mhaispurkar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete, advocate for respondent No.4

¶9

Coram : S.J.Vazifdar, J. Date : 9^th January, 2007

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1.The petitioner in view of the Rule 107(13)
claims to be entitled to have the sale by the Sale
Officer to set aside upon complying with the
provisions of the said Rule.

¶12

2.The petitioner shall be at liberty to make

¶13

an appropriate application under Rule 107(13)
before the Sale Officer in accordance with Law. It
is clarified that the order dated 18th December,

¶14

¶15

2006 shall not preclude the petitioner from making

¶16

such an application. As far as this Court is
concerned, the time to make payment may be
extended. However, it was stated that the auction
purchaser has been but in possession of the
property. In view thereof the Sale Officer may
consider it appropriate to hear him before passing

¶17

final order under Rule 107(13). In these
circumstances, it is appropriate that the
application be made before the Sale Officer. With
this clarification application is disposed of. It
is further clarified that the amount of

¶18

Rs.26,00,000/- shall be deposited in this Court in
accordance with the said order dated 18th December,
2006 and in the application the petitioner shall be
entitled to credit for the said amount, if paid
into this Court. In other words, the application
under Rule 107(13) shall not be rejected on the
ground that there is short fall of the amount of
Rs.26,00,000/- which is to be deposited in this
Court. The time to deposit the amount in this

¶19

Court is extended upto 15thJanuary, 2007.

¶20

Accordingly, Civil Application is disposed of.

¶21

M/S. Silver Line Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Silver Line Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rashid Bhola Gujar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janakibai Mhatre Widow of Late Janu Narayan Mhatre Vs Govt. of Mah.

Jankibai Mhatre and Ors. Vs Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Khanderao Vitthalrao Deshmukh Vs Dattaji Shahajirao Deshmukh and Ors.

Young Womens Christian Association of Bombay Vs United Commercial Bank

Joginder Singh Kahaan and Anr. Vs Mahalaxmi Iyer @ Mahalaxmi J.Kahaan