The writ petition as well as pending civil applications were disposed of as being infructuous. It was observed that the view taken by the DRT and DRAT regarding plant machinery being embodied to factory premises as immovable property did not appear incorrect, leading to the quashing of the proceeding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP. 3351-04
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 3351 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 701 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 501 OF 2011
Industrial Development Bank of India … Petitioner Vs. Export Import Bank of India & Ors. … Respondents
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. Neha Kadape i/b T. Dayabhai, for Respondent No. 1.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 1, 2016 PC.
Kadape appears for Respondent No. 1. It appears that by efflux of
time, petition has become infructuous, and therefore, Petitioner is not
keen in pursuing the matter. Even otherwise we find that the view
taken by the DRT and DRAT that the plant machinery is embodied to the factory premises, and therefore, it is a part of the immovable
1 / 2
WP. 3351-04
property. This view does not appear to be incorrect. Writ petition is therefore disposed of.
Vinayak Halemath
2 / 2
Industrial Development Bank of India
Export Import Bank of India
V. M. KANADE
M. S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
