Disposed

Popat Sakharam Jadhav and Another v. the Collector, Ahmednagar and Others

Bombay HC21 Oct 2013CA/11653/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench recalled an order refusing registration of a writ petition upon submission of legible copies. It disposed of the petition challenging a SERFASI Act order, finding no case for interference as the petitioner had a remedy under the Debt Recovery Tribunal and had previously sought installments.

What did the court decide?

Order refusing registration recalled; petition and civil application disposed of.

Popat Sakharam Jadhav and Another Vs the Collector… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

{1}

¶2

ca 11653.13 w wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11653 OF 2013 &

¶4

WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 25942 OF 2012

¶5

Shri Popat Sakharam Jadhav

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Collector, Ahmednagar, and others.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. V.V. Tarde, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent No.1

¶11

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 21st OCTOBER, 2013.

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1] Registration has been refused as legible copies of some document were not filed.

¶14

2] Learned counsel for petitioner submits that now copies have been supplied. We accept the statement. Accordingly, order refusing registration is recalled, by condoning delay, if any. Petition is restored to file. Civil application No. 11653 of 2013 is disposed of.

¶15

3] We petition is heard for admission.

¶16

4] The petitioner is a borrower. The order passed by Collector under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

¶17

{2} ca 11653.13 w wp.odt

¶18

Interest Act, (for short, “SERFASI Act”), is being questioned on the ground that petitioner did not receive any notice under Section 13(2) thereof. In para.3 of the petition, petitioner has stated that he did not receive any demand notice. He has thereafter pleaded that he is not aware about the paper publication. Thus, pleadings itself are not sufficient to hold that there was no service of notice either under Section 13(2) or under section 13(4) of the SERFASI, Act.

¶19

5] Petitioner, on 25.9.2012, expressed readiness and willingness to deposit the loan amount. He has then stated that he was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.1 Lakh on earlier occasion. He then sought some installment and lastly his request therein is to accept the amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. This request has been made about 3 years back. Why petitioner could not approach this court immediately thereafter is not clear.

¶20

6] In this situation, we find no case made out warranting interference. Petitioner has got remedy of approaching Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, if he is so advised. Hence. With said liberty to petitioner, we dispose of the present petition. No costs.

¶21

7] Accordingly, Civil application, as also, Writ petition, are both disposed of.

¶22

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

grt/

Popat Sakharam Jadhav and Another v. the Collector, Ahmednagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Popat Sakharam Jadhav and Another v. the Collector, Ahmednagar and Others

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

Vaishali Atmaram Suryawanshi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vikas Shivdas Pawar and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Sanjay Gopalrao Kambale Vs the Union of India and Another

Ashokrao Sadashivrao Sawargaonkar and Anr. Vs Nagnath Gangadhar Aralkar and Ors.

Navnath Rajaram Jangle Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prabhakar Yashwant Mohale Lrs Suman and Others Vs Gangadhar Shankar Garde.Lrs Chandrabhaga and Others