Dismissed

M/S. Ruia and Ruia Private Limited v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2012WP/947/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed by M/s. Ruia & Ruia challenging an order allowing the State Bank of India to amend its petition to add/mistakenly remove parties in a matter under the Public Premises Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the impugned order sustainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it failed to disclose any ground for interference with the Estate Officer's order.

M/S. Ruia and Ruia Private Limited Vs State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

wp947.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

M/s.Ruia & Ruia Private Limited : Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

State Bank of India & Ors. : Respondents

¶8

Mr.Vikram Choudhari i/b. Sandeep Bhagwat for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Harihar Bhave with Ms Shruti Khadilkar i/b. Bhave & Co., for respondent no.1.

¶10

CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶11

DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2012.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶14

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 18.7.2011

¶15

passed by the Estate Officer whereby the application for amendment filed by the respondent-Bank came to be allowed.

1/5

wp947.12

The following facts are not in dispute:-

¶20

The respondent-Bank filed an application dated 28.1.2011 for amendment of the petition and prayed for permission to amend the petition dated 16.11.2002 in terms of the Schedule annexed to the said amendment application along with application for condonation of delay. The application was allowed by the Estate Officer. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present petition.

¶21

4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for

¶22

the parties and perused the impugned order. The relevant observations made by the Estate Officer in paragraph 7 of the order read thus:-

¶23

“7. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s Nusli Neville Wadia, reported at (2008) 3 SCC 279, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and evidence Act are not applicable. However, it is necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice. At present in the above said matter the

2/5

wp947.12

Respondents have filed their reply to Show Cause Notice and the petition, and the process of filing of evidence by the respective parties is yet to be commenced. By deleting from the list of Respondents, parties who are not in possession and/or in existence and not concerned with the proceedings; and adding, and substituting the deleted parties with parties who have been in the possession and occupation of the portion of the premises, will not cause any harm and injustice to the other Respondents i.e. the Respondent No.1 &

¶28

By adding the parties viz. M/s.Datamatics Corporation and M/s.Ruia & Ruia Pvt. Ltd., who have been in the possession and occupation of the portion of the premises, they will get fair chance and opportunity to plead their case. The Petitioner have sought the amendment for adding M/s.Datamatics Corporation, M/s.Ruia & Ruia Pvt. Ltd. as the parties and deleting M/s.Datamatics Ltd., M/s.Sigma Paints Ltd. &

3/5

wp947.12

M/s.Ruia & Ruia who are not concerned parties as

¶33

stated above. Hence in the interest of natural justice, fair play and equity, application for amendment filed by the Petitioner is allowed ..............”

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the course adopted by the Estate Officer by permitting the amendment application is inconsistent with the procedure stipulated in section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Estate Officer before considering the request of the Bank to amend the petition and, therefore, the order impugned is violative of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.

¶35

The counsel for the respondent-Bank has supported the impugned order.

¶36

We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective

4/5

wp947.12

counsel and considered the law on the subject. The above referred observations made by the Estate Officer would clearly show that the process of filing of evidence by the respective parties has not yet been commenced. Similarly, if the petitioner is not a necessary party, it is alway open for the petitioner to raise these objections at the appropriate stage before the Estate Officer. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act are not applicable to

¶41

the proceedings before the Estate Officer in that sense of the term. Taking into consideration the overall view of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned order is sustainable in law and requires no interference at the hands of this Court. It is open for the petitioner to file

¶42

appropriate reply and raise appropriate grounds before the Estate Officer.

¶43

8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.

¶44

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶45

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

¶46

Suundaresan

¶47

5/5

M/S. Ruia and Ruia Private Limited v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ruia and Ruia Private Limited v. State Bank 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peasants and Workers Party of India and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayant Khalatkar Vs M.S.R.D.C. and Ors.

Medical Technologies Limited Vs Neon Labortories Limited and Ors.

Mrs. Shailaja Dilip Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nashik Industrial Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Nitin Diliprao Kale Vs the Election in Charge Officer, Chinchwad Vidhansabha, Pimpri