Allowed

Shri. Mohamad Hanif Fazlur Rahiman Rangrej v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2013WP/11581/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a condonation of delay application. The court directed the divisional joint registrar to proceed with and decide the pending revision application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Divisional Joint Registrar directed to hear and decide the Revision Application within three months from today.

Shri. Mohamad Hanif Fazlur Rahiman Rangrej Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP11581-12.sxw

¶2

JP CHAVAN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11581 OF 2012

¶5

Mohamad Hanif Fazlur Rahiman ... Petitioner Rangrej Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. M. A Utagikar for the petitioner

¶8

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5

¶9

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 20 JUNE 2013

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned AGP for the State authorities.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete respondent nos. 6 and 7 as, according to him, for the purpose of the present petition, their presence may not be required. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to delete respondent nos. 6 and 7 at his own risk.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune dated 30 March 2013, rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision application. The petitioner is stated to be a guarantor to the loan taken by the respondent no. 6 and 7 from the respondent no.1 Bank, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. A recovery certificate came to be issued on 26 June

¶14

1/3

¶15

WP11581-12.sxw

¶16

The petitioner appeared in the proceedings and contended that the respondent no.6 owns a hotel and property worth lakhs of rupees and the dues could be easily recovered from him. The petitioner also approached the respondent Bank for one time settlement. Thereafter, he preferred a Revision application No.369 of 2007 along the application for stay. The Revision Application was disposed of as the order of attachment of salary of the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner filed a revision application No. 299 of 2009, as again the salary of the petitioner was attached. Thereafter, two Writ Petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 9452 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.3125 of 2011 came to be filed by the respondent bank. The writ petition no. 3125 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court on 20/12/2011 directing the petitioner to deposit 50% amount and directing the Divisional Joint Registrar to proceed with the revision application. Thereafter revision application filed by the petitioner is dismissed on the ground of delay by the impugned order.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the amount. The learned counsel further submitted that the salary account of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.60000/- has already been attached against the claim in the recovery certificate of Rs. 53,755/-. The learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances, and especially when this Court, by order dated 20 December 2011 passed in Writ petition No. 3125 of 2011 had directed the Divisional Registrar to proceed with the matter and decide the same within three months, the revision ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of delay. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has opposed the petition. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that there is no substance in the grounds made out in the application that one time settlement was under consideration. It was submitted that the petitioner was fully aware of the recovery certificate and no case is made

¶18

2/3

¶19

WP11581-12.sxw

¶20

out for condonation of delay of about four years and therefore the impugned order is correct and proper.

¶21

In Writ Petition no. 3125 of 2011, this Court had specifically directed the revisional authority to decide the revision application within a period of three months and had directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount, which is deposited. Salary of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.60,000/- is already under attachment. In view of the detailed order passed on 20 December 2011 in Writ Petition no. 3185 of 2011, the Divisional Registrar ought not to have dismissed the revisional application, which has needlessly led multiplicity of proceedings. Even though there is delay in filing the revision, the petitioner has also suffered as his salary account for more amount than the amount due under the certificate is attached. In the circumstances, it will be appropriate if the delay is condoned and the revision application is taken up for hearing and decided at the earliest.

¶22

Accordingly writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and the Divisional Joint Registrar will hear and decide the Revision Application within a period of three months from today. No costs.

¶23

(N. M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

3/3

Shri. Mohamad Hanif Fazlur Rahiman Rangrej v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mohamad Hanif Fazlur Rahiman Rangrej v. State of Maharashtra 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

Gulshan J. Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Shri. Sitaram Gopal Patil Vs Rendal Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. a. G. Jadhav Vs Shamsuddin S. Charaniya and Ors.

Ganpat Mahadev Patil (Since Decd) through Lrs, Kapil Ganpat Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shir. Nagnth Praladh Yadav Vs Shri. Sudhir Ashok Randive and Ors.

Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust, through Managing Trustee, Shantinath Jangonda Patil Vs Shri. Mahaveer Jangonda Patil and Anr.