Disposed

Pratibha Amit Pradhan v. M/S. Rohit Enterprises and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2009WP/5532/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging an order condoning delay in filing a revision against a executed recovery certificate were disposed of. The court set aside the impugned order, restored the application, and directed specific procedural steps to be taken for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order of 25.11.2008 setting aside the impugned order was set aside; the applications were restored to file.

Pratibha Amit Pradhan Vs M/S. Rohit Enterprises and Ors. — Bombay HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7532 OF 2009

¶5

The Chembur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.5532 OF 2009

¶9

Pratibha Amit Pradhan .. Petitioner

¶10

M/s Rohit Enterprises & ors .. Respondents

¶11

Mr. V.C.Ghosalkar, Advocate for the petitioner in WP 7532/09. Mrs Neeta Karnik, for the petitioner in WP No.5532/09. Mr V.C.Ghosalkar, for respondent no.2 in WP No. 5532/09. Mrs S.S.Bhende, AGP, for respondent nos. 6,7 and 9..

¶12

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 17/09/2009

¶13

PC:

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

These two writ petitions are directed against the order

¶16

dated 25.11.2008 passed on the application for condoning the

¶17

delay in filing the revision application against the Recovery

¶18

¶19

Certificate No.2349 of 2002 dated 28.5.2003 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wadala, under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960. There was a delay of about 1200 days in filing the revision. Admittedly, the recovery certificate had also been executed before filing of the revision and the property was auctioned and now the auction purchaser is in possession of the said property. The auction purchaser was not added as a party respondent to the revision application. In view thereof, learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated that I need not record reasons for setting aside the impugned order and they have agreed for the following order.

¶20

The order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, is set aside. The application for condoning the delay and stay is restored to file.

¶21

Respondent no.4-borrower is directed to add the auction purchaser as a party respondent in the revision application and in the application for condoning the delay within a period of two weeks from today. Ms Karnik, learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser, waives service on their behalf in the revision application. Respondent no.4 is directed to serve a copy of the revision and the application for condoning the delay on the

¶22

¶23

advocate for the auction purchaser within a period of two weeks from today.

¶24

The Divisional Joint Registrar shall hear the application for condoning the delay afresh and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. All contentions of the parties including the contention of the respondents that the revision application is not maintainable, are kept open.

¶25

With these observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

Pratibha Amit Pradhan v. M/S. Rohit Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratibha Amit Pradhan v. M/S. Rohit Enterprises 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

Malhari Punjaram Ahire and Ors. Vs Sakhubai Runja Ahire and Ors.

State Bank Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs Ashuthosh Construction Pvt.Ltd. and Ors.

Pranav Madhusudan Gandhi and Ors. Vs Sitabai Shirali (Decd.)by Lrs.- Ramabai Bailur and Ors.

Pandurang R. Birambole and Ors. Vs M/S. Oriental Containers Ltd. and Ors.

Smt. Laj Lakhiram Vigh and Ors. Vs M/S. Maitri Park Chs Ltd.

Laxman Sawtyappa Mane and Ors. Vs Harnabai Alias Haribai Nagappa Nikumbe