Disposed

Kapil Ramakant Pandya v. District Magistrate and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2016WP/13590/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal regarding tenant dispossess and payment liability while directing a stay on opening auction bids for one week.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to move Debt Recovery Tribunal within one week; auction bids not to be opened for one week.

Kapil Ramakant Pandya Vs District Magistrate and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2016)

WP.13590-2016

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13590 OF 2016

¶6

Kapil Ramakant Pandya

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

District Magistrate & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Rajesh Kanojia i/b Res Juris for Petitioner. Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for State.

¶12

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 15 DECEMBER 2016

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

1 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on

¶16

instructions, makes a statement based upon the document placed on record that inspite of repeated representations by the borrower as well as by the Petitioner-tenant, the Respondent-Bank is not taking steps for accepting the amount towards the liability since year 2006 and as of today the amount

¶17

due and payable as claimed by the Bank is about Rs.17,43,000/.

¶18

2 Without going into the controversy and in view of the fact that

¶19

¶20

WP.13590-2016

¶21

the Respondent though served and affidavit to that effect is on record, none appeared for them, we are inclined to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the Petitioner to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal in view of the provisions of Section 17 and make appropriate application for relief,

¶22

if any with regard to tenant's right who was already dispossessed.

¶23

However, the right of re-possession, if any, may be agitated by the authority in accordance with law.

¶24

3 Taking over all view of the matter, at this stage, we are

¶25

inclined to observe that the sale/auction which is already declared to continue, but the bids so received should not be opened for a period of one week from today so as to enable the Petitioner to take appropriate Orders from the authorities.

¶26

4 The Debt Recovery Tribunal to pass necessary Order uninfluenced by the aforesaid observations in accordance with law, if such application is filed by the Petitioner within one week from today.

¶27

5 Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty.

¶28

6 All the parties to act on a copy of this Order duly authenticated

¶29

by the Registry of this Court.

¶30

(A.S. GADKARI,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Kapil Ramakant Pandya v. District Magistrate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Ramakant Pandya v. District Magistrate 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

Namco Industries Private Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nazir Hasan Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwanbhai Gopalbhai Tandel and Anr. Vs Union of India through Its Office at Ayakar Bhavan and Anr.

Ramesh Balu Gorugade Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Others

Sameer Shaikh and Anr. Vs Union Bank of India and Anr.

Sravanya Rao Meka Vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Ors.