Allowed

Bhagini Nivedita Mahila Sahakari Path Sanstha and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Superintendent of Police Home and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2014WP/2190/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the police to grant protection to a Special Recovery Officer for taking possession of auctioned cooperative society property, relying on the registrar's authorization and absence of court restraints. Petitioners are liable for charges.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police to grant police protection for taking possession of the auctioned property.

Bhagini Nivedita Mahila Sahakari Path Sanstha and Ors. Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

wp2190

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2190 OF 2014

¶5

Bhagini Nivedita Mahila
Sahakari Path Sanstha & Ors.
vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
and others

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Ajit Jayawant Kenjale for the Petitioners
Ms S.S.Bhende, AGP for the respondent Nos.1,2 and 4.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 7, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1,2 and
4. The first petitioner is a cooperative society
registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act,1960 (for short “the said Act of
1960”). The second petitioner is the credit society
and the third petitioner is the Special Recovery
Officer appointed to exercise the various powers
under the said Act of 1960.

¶13

2A recovery certificate under section 101 of the
said Act of 1960 was issued on the basis of the
application made by the first petitioner. In
execution of the recovery certificate, property of
the borrowers was attached. The attached properties
of the borrowers were subjected to auction. After
conclusion of the auction, a sale deed has been

¶14

wp2190

¶15

¶16

executed in favour of the purchasers.

¶17

3Now what remains to be done is to take over
possession in accordance with subsection (2) of
section 100 of the said Act of 1960. It is pointed
out that the second respondent has authorised the
third petitioner to take possession of the land
subject matter of the auction.

¶18

4An application was made by the second
petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Satara,
requesting the Superintendent to provide police
protection to the third petitioner for the purpose
of taking over possession. By a letter dated 6th May
2013, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Home),
Satara informed the second petitioner that the
borrower has filed certain proceedings in the Court
and therefore, protection cannot be granted. The
second petitioner again addressed a letter to the
Superintendent of Police, (Home),Satara dated 3rd
September 2013 informing that the auction sale of
the property of the borrower has been already
completed and the second respondent has authorised
the third petitioner to take over the possession of
the mortgaged property. It is pointed out that
though the borrower has filed a suit in the Court of
Wai, there was no adinterim or interim order
granted by the Court and therefore, a request was
made to grant the police protection.

¶19

5The learned AGP states that she has not
received any instructions. We must note here that

¶20

3 wp2190

¶21

on 27th February 2014, the petition was placed on
board and adjourned till today. Our attention is
invited to the letter dated 13th February 2013
addressed by the second respondent (District Deputy
Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Satara) to
the third petitioner by which the third petitioner
has been authorised in accordance with subsection
(2) of section 100 of the said Act of 1960 to take
over possession of the auctioned property. So long
as the said direction of the second respondent is in
force, the Police Authorities are bound to grant
police protection for taking over possession of the
auctioned property. If there is no restraint order
passed by the Court preventing the third petitioner
from taking over possession of the auctioned
property, the Police Authorities are under an
obligation to grant police protection to the third
petitioner for performing his statutory duty. It is
obvious that the petitioners will have to pay
necessary charges for the police protection.

¶22

6Hence, we dispose of this petition by passing
the following order:

¶23

(i)in view of letter dated 13th February 2013
addressed by the second respondent to the third
petitioner (Exh.C to the petition), we direct
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Home),
Satara, to grant police protection to the
petitioners for the purpose of taking over
possession of the property subject matter of
the auction in accordance with law;

¶24

4 wp2190

¶25

(ii)Needless to say that the the petitioners will have to pay necessary charges as per the prevailing policy of the State Government for providing police protection;

¶26

(iii)We make it clear that the petitioners will be entitled to take possession of the property subject matter of the auction provided there is no restraint order passed by any Court preventing the petitioners from taking over possession;

¶27

(iv)Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶28

(v)Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶29

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

¶30

(A.S.OKA,J.)

Bhagini Nivedita Mahila Sahakari Path Sanstha and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Superintendent of Police Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagini Nivedita Mahila Sahakari Path Sanstha and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Superintendent of Police Home and 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. Maruti Bala Mane Vs the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale Vs Col. R. D. Nikam Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale Vs the Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Satara Branch and Ors.

Vijay Laxman Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, through Legal Officer, Shri. Arvind Mahadeo Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Co.Operation and Textile Department

Sharanbasappa Pundalik Birajdar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.