Allowed

Suresh Narayan Rege v. the Saraswat Coop Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2007WP/2297/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order refusing to condone the petitioner's delay in filing a Revision Application against surplus proceeds from a sold property. The Court directed the Registrar to hear the application on merits and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 4th November 2006 was quashed and set aside. The delay was condoned. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- costs.

Suresh Narayan Rege Vs the Saraswat Coop Bank Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2297 OF 2007

¶4

Suresh Narayan Rege.. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Saraswat Coop.Bank Ltd. & Ors..Respondents

¶7

Mr.A.P.Stteenson for petitioner

¶8

Mr.Prashant Naik for respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE:10th December 2007

¶10

P.C.

¶11

.This petition is directed against an
order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies refusing to condone the
delay in filing of Revision Application.

¶12

¶13

2.The delay has not been condoned on the
ground that the petitioner is very well aware of
the proceedings which were pending. Consent
award was passed and the properties have been
attached and sold in execution thereof. The
surplus proceeds are lying but the petitioner is
refusing to accept the same. Mr.Naik submits
that there are proceedings after proceedings
which the petitioner has instituted to challenge
the sale and has failed every where.

¶14

3.Learned Divisional Joint Registrar has
proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is
obliged to explain the delay of every day.
Further, the petitioner has been faulted for not
being able to state as to when the sale concluded
or when did he realise the material irregularity
or fraud therein.

¶15

¶16

assigned in para 4 of the impugned order proceed
on the basis that the merits of the case are such
that the delay does not deserve to be condoned.

¶17

5.In the peculiar facts of this case, it
was not just and fair approach. In such
circumstances, the order under challenge passed
on 4th November 2006 is quashed and set aside.
The delay is condoned and it is directed that the
Registrar should hear and dispose of the Revision
application on merits and in accordance with law,
provided the petitioner pays costs quantified at
Rs.3000/- to be paid to respondents within two
weeks from today. Petition disposed of
accordingly.

¶18

(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)

Suresh Narayan Rege v. the Saraswat Coop Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Narayan Rege v. the Saraswat Coop Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Maruti Surwase and Ors. Vs Kalyanrao Shivaji Ingale and Anr.

Ayesha Begum Sujaiuddin and Ors. Vs Kazi Rajiyuddin Jahiruddin through Legal Representative Smt. Asifa Begum Rajiyuddin and Ors.

Sunita Mahendra Ranpise Vs Mahendra Janardan Ranpise

Chindhu Shankar Thakar Vs Nathu Bhagu Thakar and Ors.

Yallappa Babu Jadhav and Ors. Vs Dyandev Kondiba Sabole and Ors.

Sagar Girdihar Bachhao Vs Ranjan Walchand Bachhao