Disposed

Central Bank of India v. Messrs Unique Gardens and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2012CAW/350/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a Civil Application seeking directions regarding property disputes and bank attachment. The Court noted prior orders maintaining status quo and directed Respondent No. 8 not to claim equity via development. The application was disposed of while granting time for further instructions on depositing amounts.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Application was disposed of. No specific relief was granted in the operative order beyond maintaining status quo directions previously issued.

Central Bank of India Vs Messrs Unique Gardens and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

caw 350-12.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 350 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5854 OF 2007

¶5

Central Bank of India

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

¶8

M/s. Unique Gardens & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co for Applicant Mr. Abhaykumar Apate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶10

Mr. S.V. Marane for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

¶11

Mr. V.P. Vaze for Respondent No. 8

¶12

CORAM : D. D. SINHA &

¶13

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ

¶14

DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶17

After hearing the Applicant, this Court passed order dated 09.04.2012 in the present Civil Application whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo until further orders for the reasons stated in the said order. Respondent No. 5 was directed by the said order to throw light on the aspect of first attachment by Special Recovery Officer of the Janata Sahakari Bank dated

¶18

Pg 1 of 4

¶19

caw 350-12.doc

¶20

28.05.2011.

¶21

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 has brought to our notice that on earlier occasion, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Writ Petition No. 3375 of 2003 for setting aside the auction sale which was concluded in favour of Respondent No. 7. It is submitted that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 04.07.2003. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 has further contended that the present Applicant had also filed Writ Petition, on earlier occasion, bearing number 2035 of 2004 questioning notice of sale, proclamation of sale, auction sale and the confirmation of sale. The said Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally. It is, therefore, contended that the present Petition, in view of doctrine of res judicata is not maintainable. Similar arguments are advanced by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 8.

¶22

We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned respective counsels. In the order of Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 28.02.2007, the observations are made in respect of theme of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act which hold water since the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Recovery Officer has not been challenged earlier by any of the Respondents, which is impugned in the present Petition. It is, in these circumstances, we are prima facie of the view that the case

¶23

Pg 2 of 4

¶24

caw 350-12.doc

¶25

is made out to pass following order :

¶26

i. Development agreement dated 17.03.2007 executed by Respondent No. 7 in favaour of Respondent No. 8 would be subject to result of the present Writ Petition. If Respondent No. 8 develops the property, that by itself, shall not create any equity in favour of Respondent No. 8 since the entire activity is subject to result of this proceedings. Respondent No. 8 shall not claim any equity in this regard.

¶27

ii. We recall the order of status quo passed by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2012.

¶28

iii. Civil Application is disposed of.

¶29

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Applicant as well as learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 brought to the notice of this Court the operative part of the order passed by the Recovery Officer dated 28.02.2007 whereby Respondent No. 5 is directed to remit the amount of Rs. 1,07,50,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that Respondent No. 5 has not implemented this direction given by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore, prayed for direction to Respondent No.5 to deposit the said amount in this Court within the stipulated period.

¶30

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 seeks three weeks time to obtain necessary instructions in this regard to make a

¶31

Pg 3 of 4

¶32

caw 350-12.doc

¶33

statement on the next date of hearing.

¶34

[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ D. D. SINHA, J ]z

¶35

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶36

Pg 4 of 4

Central Bank of India v. Messrs Unique Gardens and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Messrs Unique Gardens 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

Premnarayan Harinarayanji Lakhani Vs Everest Fincap Pvt.Ltd.and 11 Ors.

Dr. Nandu Dwarkadas Chhabria Vs State of Bank of India and Anr.

Gajanan Tukaram Tambe Vs Union Bank of India, through, Managing Director and Ors.

Balasaheb Ganpatrao Zambare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pimpri Chinchwad Ration Shop Owner Asso. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb Ganpatrao Zambare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.