Dismissed

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2009WP/648/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil writ petition alleged fraud in the sale of properties by a respondent financial institution. The Court held that the matter was not fit for extraordinary jurisdiction as remedies existed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and via BIFR appeals, directing the petitioner to pursue those legal avenues.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file a writ petition was refused; the petitioner directed to approach the relevant authorities and statutory courts.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 648 OF 2009

¶5

 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

¶6

 & Anr. Petitioners

¶7

 Versus

¶8

 Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

 Dr. Anil Gopal Variath i/b. M/s. La Focus for the
 petitioners.

¶10

 Mr. P.S.Jetly with Mrs. H.P.Shah & Mr. P.Khosla for
 respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

 Ms. Raji Subramaniam i/b. K.V.Aiyar & Associates for
 respondent No.3.

¶12

 Mr. M.M.Vashi i/b. M.P.Vashi for respondent No.7.

¶13

 Mrs. M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent Nos.2, 5 & 6.

¶14

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND

¶15

 J.H.BHATIA, JJ.

¶16

DATE: 16th April, 2009.

¶17

P.C.

¶18

 1. Respondent No.3 was the owner of certain

¶19

¶20

 properties. Those properties were mortgaged to the
 Financial Institutions. These debts have been taken over
 by petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioners
 that there were certain dues under the provisions of
 FERA. The Respondent No.5, pursuant to a demand
 received, recovered those dues by selling the properties
 over which it is submitted, the petitioner No.1 has a
 first charge. The respondent No.3, it is submitted, is
 still before the BIFR. It is further submitted that
 respondent No.5 fraudulently sold the properties without
 proper notice. The sale has been confirmed on the same
 day and possession was also handed over on the same. The
 publication of notice for sale, it is also submitted was
 not given in the daily newspapers, but in the local
 newspaper in "Dahanu Times" and another weekly called
 "Nirdha". It is further submitted that they have no
 remedy against the said order under the provisions of the
 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

¶21

 2. The principal contention therefore on behalf of
 the petitioners is that the entire sale is fraudulent.
 This would require investigation on facts. Apart from
 that, the respondent NO.3 has already preferred an appeal
 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
 Code. An appeal against the order of sale of property
 under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is available

¶22

¶23

 under the said Act.

¶24

 3. Considering the above, in our opinion, this is not
 a fit case for this Court to exercise extraordinary
 jurisdiction. It is open to the petitioner to take steps
 under law, including intervening in the appeal filed by
 respondent No.3 or filing independent appeal or suit or
 any other remedy which may be available.

¶25

 4. In view of the above position, the petition is
 disposed of.

¶26

(F.I.REBELLO,J.)

¶27

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr. v. Union of India 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

M/S. Mittal Constructions Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai II , Mumbai Vs M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd.

M/S.P. K. International Vs Union of India and Anr.

Director of Enforcement Vs the New Greatest Eastern Spg.and Wvg.Co.Lt.D and Anr.

Abdul Hussain Taherbhai Lokhandwala Vs the Union of India Athough Acommissioner of Customs