Dismissed

Sanjay Jaissinha Kajaria v. Sub Registrar of Assurances, , BORIVALI-6 and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2013WP/1553/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court considered the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a deed of conveyance and consequential notices. Finding an efficacious remedy of civil suit available, the Court held the writ petition not maintainable and disposed of it. Relief to file suit was left open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of being not maintainable; petitioner at liberty to file suit with appropriate forum.

Sanjay Jaissinha Kajaria Vs Sub Registrar of Assurances… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

wp1553.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1553 OF 2013

¶7

Sanjay Jaissinha Kajaria ....Petitioner V/s. Sub Registrar of Assurances & Ors. ....Respondents

¶8

Ms.Mrunalini Vijay Panchal i/by Navdeep Vora & Associates for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.V.S.Tiwari AGP for the respondent nos.1, 8 & 9. Mr.Vinod Mahadik for respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶10

Ms.Rajani Iyer, Sr.Counsel with N.Engineer i/by Mansukhlal Hiralal for respondent nos.5 & 6.

¶11

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶12

DATE : 22nd August, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

1 Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner

¶15

submits that the Counsel who is going to argue the matter is busy in

¶16

Mantralaya. She submitted that the matter may be kept on any other

¶17

date. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the respondent nos.5 &

¶18

It is submitted that the matter has been adjourned at the instance

¶19

of the petitioner on number of occasions during the pendency of the

¶20

petition. The petitioner is instigating the tenants of the property

¶21

wp1553.13

¶22

¶23

against respondent nos.5 & 6. It is submitted that the Writ petition is not maintainable under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

2 We have perused the reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs :-

¶25

(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the papers and proceedings in respect of the impugned Deed of Conveyance dated 3^rd March, 2006 and after going into the legality and propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same ;

¶26

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the papers and proceedings in respect of the impugned notice dated 30/09/2009 issued by the Respondent nos.02/03 and the impugned report dated 24/05/2012 prepared by the Respondent no.4 and after going into the legality and

¶27

wp1553.13

¶28

¶29

propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same ;

¶30

(c)that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the papers and proceedings in respect of the impugned order/letter dated 29/05/2013 issued by the Respondent no.8 and after going into the legality and propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same.

¶31

3 In our view, there is some substance in the arguments made by the respondent nos.5 & 6. The petitioner has challenged the deed of conveyance dated 3.3.2006 which has been executed by respondent no.7 who is the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing the suit.

¶32

4 We have perused the farad. The matter has been adjourned at the instance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner on atleast 4 to 5 occasions.

¶33

wp1553.13

¶34

¶35

5 Perusal of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner is challenging the conveyance which was executed by respondent no.7 in favour of respondent nos.5 & 6 and also the consequential notices. In our view, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of challenging the conveyance and/or notices issued by respondent nos.2 & 3 by taking out appropriate proceedings either by filing a suit or by approaching the appropriate authority as may be advised and therefore, the Writ petition is not maintainable. Writ petition is therefore disposed of being not maintainable. It is clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to file suit with the appropriate forum. All contentions are kept open.

¶36

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶37

(V.M.KANADE,J)

Sanjay Jaissinha Kajaria v. Sub Registrar of Assurances, , BORIVALI-6 and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Jaissinha Kajaria v. Sub Registrar of Assurances, , BORIVALI-6 and 8 Ors.

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

Shri. Sanjay Tiwari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development

Shri. Parshuram Rajaram Bhagat and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Paresh Dharma Keni Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Vishal Rajendra Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Vishwanath Premnath and Ors. Vs the Oriental Bank of Commerce

Shri. Sajjan Keshav Pednekar and Anr. Vs the Chief Officer, Silvassa Municipal Council, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa and Ors.