Disposed

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

Bombay HC22 Aug 2013WP/4191/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the writ petition for urgent appeal circulation had become infructuous as the DRAT was seized of the matter. However, directing the petitioners to clear remaining articles from the flat within two weeks, it authorized the bank to remove and sell them if not cleared by then.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to clear remaining articles from the flat within two weeks. Bank authorized to remove and sell articles if not cleared by then.

M/S. Vishwanath Premnath and Ors. Vs the Oriental Bank of Commerce — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

wp4191.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4191 OF 2013

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.914 OF 2013

¶9

The Oriental Bank of Commerce ….Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN M/s.Vishwanath Premnath & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. The Oriental Bank of Commerce ....Respondents

¶10

Mr.Yogesh Deshpande for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.V.R.Dhond Senior Advocate along with Mr.Prathamesh Kamat & Mr.O.A.Das i/by Mr.O.A.Das & Associates for respondent no.1. Mr.D.G.Mishra for respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶12

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

¶13

DATE : 22nd August, 2013.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

1 Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 as well as learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶16

2 The petitioners have moved this petition in this Court for

¶17

wp4191.13

¶18

¶19

urgent circulation of the appeal which was filed by them against the judgment and order passed by the DRAT. On 6^th May 2013 this Court was pleased to pass the following order :-

¶20

“1 By consent, stand over to 27.06.2013.

¶21

2 In the meantime, it is agreed that the petitioners shall be entitled to remove any articles from the premises within two weeks from today but after giving all parties seventy two hours notice in writing. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, the auction purchasers, shall be at liberty thereafter to clear the premises. The same however, shall be done in the presence of the petitioners and respondent No.1 and/or their representatives and only after respondent Nos.2 to 5 giving notice of at least seventy two hours in writing. 3 Subject to above, interim order passed earlier shall continue till further orders.”

¶22

3 Pursuant to the said order the petitioners have already removed most of these articles and panchanama and inventory to that effect have been prepared. However, they have not cleared all these articles of the said flat. In the order dated 6^th May 2013 this Court has permitted the respondents to clear the premises if all the articles are not removed by the petitioners.

¶23

wp4191.13

¶24

¶25

4 It is an admitted position that the DRAT is now seized of the matter and next date of hearing is 26.8.2013. In our view, therefore, the present petition has become infructuous since the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedy including seeking of urgent interim relief before the DRAT.

¶26

5 However, in view of the order passed by this Court on 6^th May 2013 the petitioners shall clear the remaining articles owned by them from the said flat within a period of two weeks from today. If these articles are not removed within two weeks, the bank will be authorized to remove the said articles and keep it in the godown for a period of four weeks thereafter. If those articles are not taken away by the petitioners, then in that event, bank will be entitled to sell those articles and the sale proceeds shall be given to the petitioners.

¶27

6 With the above directions, petition is disposed of. All contentions raised by the petitioners in this petition are kept open. These contentions may be decided by the DRAT in accordance with law. The petitioners are also at liberty to seek further interim relief before the DRAT. The respondent-auction purchaser has already given undertaking that he may not create any third party rights. In this view of the matter, rights of the petitioners are already protected.

¶28

wp4191.13

¶29

¶30

7 In view of disposal of the Writ petition, Civil application

¶31

does not survive and disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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.

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

Amar Vammanrao Bhagtat Vs Dy. Dist. Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) and Ors.