Dismissed

Mr. Taga Ram Meena v. Industrial Development Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2016WP/1644/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the forfeiture of Rs. 25 lakhs. The Bench held that the disputes regarding service of intimation and the facts involved are not capable of resolution in writ jurisdiction as the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy by filing a suit in a competent Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for lack of writ jurisdiction and presence of alternate effective remedy.

Mr. Taga Ram Meena Vs Industrial Development Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

914-OSWP1644-13.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1644 OF 2013

¶4

Mr. Taga Ram Meena…Petitioner
Versus

¶5

Industrial Development Bank of India & 2 Ors.…Respondents

¶6

Mr. D.H. Mehta, with Mr. S.J. Mishra & Mr. P.D. Tiwari,
i/b SRS Legal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Darshan Mehta, with Ms. Nirali Sanghavi,
i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent No. 1.

¶7

Mr. R.C. Master, with Ms. Jyotsna N. Pandhi,
for Respondent No. 3.

¶8

CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
DATED:7th January 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.We have heard Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner and after hearing him, with his assistance we have
perused the Petition and Annexures at length. We are of the view
that the issues raised and particularly in relation to forfeiture of Rs.
25 lakhs by the contesting Respondents cannot be resolved in writ
jurisdiction. Whether the Petitioner was served with any intimation
prior to forfeiture or whether it was at all issued and served or
received are all disputed issues and questions of fact.

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

914-OSWP1644-13.DOC

¶13

2. The Petitioner has alternate equally efficacious remedy including bringing a Suit in a Competent Civil Court if the monies are wrongfully appropriated or retained by the contesting Respondents.

¶14

3. We do not think that the issue which is obviously factual can be resolved in our limited jurisdiction. The Petition is dismissed.

¶15

(G. S. PATEL, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶16

2 of 2

Mr. Taga Ram Meena v. Industrial Development Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Taga Ram Meena v. Industrial Development Bank of India and 2 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

Shri. Raju Laxman Pachapure Vs District Deputy Registrar, C. S. Kolhapur and Ors.

Mrs. Neela Bernard Soans Vs the Principal / Head Mistress, of Seven Square Academy and Ors.

Harshal Ramsingh Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Indur Kartar Chhugani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Wasim Mohammed Satted Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Narendra Kumari Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and 12 Others