Remanded

Akbar Ali Khan Mehboob Ali Khan v. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Aurangabad

Bombay HC18 Jul 2016WP/1504/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order issuing a warrant of arrest and set aside recovery proceedings initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against a decree holder, holding that execution of a civil court decree must be filed before the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order issuing warrant of arrest is quashed; recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal are set aside; respondent permitted to file execution before Civil Court.

Akbar Ali Khan Mehboob Ali Khan Vs Maharashtra… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP-1504.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2015

¶4

Akbar Ali Khan S/o Mehboob Ali Khan

¶5

...PETITIONER

¶6

versus

¶7

Maharashtra Gramin Bank Through its Manager ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. M.A. Latiff, Advocate for petitioner Mr. R.D. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 18^th JULY, 2016.

¶11

Order :-

¶12

Mr. Latif, learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order issuing warrant of arrest is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to learned counsel, recovery proceedings were not maintainable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as the decree is passed by the Civil Court on 02-01-2008 and execution as such is required to be filed before the Civil Court only. To support his submission, learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment dated 11-03-2014 of Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1324 of 2013 (M/s Star Coat Farm and others vs. IDBI Bank and another).

¶13

We have heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent.

¶14

Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel submits that even though the decree is passed in 2008, no amount is deposited by the petitioner with

¶15

2 WP-1504.15

¶16

respondent - bank. After obtaining recovery certificate, recovery proceedings was initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad. Learned counsel further submits that respondent - Bank be permitted to file execution proceedings before the Civil Court.

¶17

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. No provision is pointed out by the respondent to the effect that even if decree is passed in the year 2008 by Civil Court, the same can be executed before Debt Recovery Tribunal by obtaining recovery certificate. The petitioner has relied on the judgment dated 11-03-2014 of Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1324 of 2013 (M/s Star Coat Farm and others vs. IDBI Bank and another) stating that if the decree passed by the Civil Court, the execution proceedings be filed before it.

¶18

In light of above, impugned order is quashed and set aside. So also, proceedings for recovery before Debt Recovery Tribunal stands quashed and set aside. Needless to state that respondent - bank shall be entitled to file execution proceeding before the Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶19

Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

Akbar Ali Khan Mehboob Ali Khan v. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Aurangabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akbar Ali Khan Mehboob Ali Khan v. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Aurangabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Ganu Ikhare Vs Ramesh Punjaji Thorat and Another

Rangnath Tukaram Rasal and Others Vs Satish Gavai and Others

Janabai Bansi Kardile and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jeevan Jyot Charitable Trust, Parbhani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kashinath Raghunath Barahate and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Ordnance Factory, Jalgaon Vs State of Maharashtra and Others