Disposed

Mrs. Farida Mohamed U. Shaikh through Its Poa Holder Mr. Mohd. Sadiq Shaikh v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014WP/8231/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the DRAT's order fixing a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,60,000. The High Court found clear provisions in section 18 of the Securitisation Act vesting discretionary power on DRAT and declined to interfere, merely extending the time to deposit.

What did the court decide?

Time to deposit Rs. 1.60 lakh extended by further four weeks.

Mrs. Farida Mohamed U. Shaikh through Its Poa Holder Mr. Mohd… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

(WP 8231 of 2014)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 8231 OF 2014

¶6

Mrs. Farida Mohamed U. Shaikh ..Petitioner Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Milind Sakpal for Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Sanjay Sahadeo Anabhawan i/b. M & S Legal Venture for Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2014

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶15

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the DRAT dated 13.6.2014 directing the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- within four weeks from the date of the order. Firstly, it is submitted that the Petitioner is a poor lady and is not in a position to deposit the said amount. Secondly, it is submitted that the said amount may be reduced to 20%. Thirdly, it is submitted that if the appeal is dismissed, the Petitioner is likely to come on the street.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that after the demand notice was issued, the flat in question was transferred on number of occasions and the Petitioner is the last purchaser of the flat. It is submitted that any transaction

1/2

- 2 -

(WP 8231 of 2014)

regarding purchase of flat, after issuance of demand notice, is null and void and, therefore, the Petitioner, even otherwise, does not have any right over the said flat.

¶21

In our view, the provisions of section 18 of the Securitisation Act are quite clear. The discretionary power is vested on the DRAT to consider the application for waiver of pre-deposit. The DRAT after taking into consideration various documents, which were produced on record, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner should be directed to deposit Rs.1.60 lakhs within four weeks from the receipt of the order. We are not inclined to interfere with the said order since the condition under section 18 of the said Act is equally applicable to the third party. Hence, the time to deposit the amount of Rs.1.60 lakh is extended by further period of four weeks. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

Vaishali Tikam

¶23

2/2

Mrs. Farida Mohamed U. Shaikh through Its Poa Holder Mr. Mohd. Sadiq Shaikh v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Farida Mohamed U. Shaikh through Its Poa Holder Mr. Mohd. Sadiq Shaikh v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 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

Sanjay S/O. Chandrakant Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay S/O. Chandrakant Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aneesha Dutt Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shamiullah Habibullah Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxminarayan Girdharilalji Bhutada and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Shaji K. K. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.