Disposed

Smt. Kusum Rajaram Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2016WP/4837/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted temporary injunction protecting petitioner from dispossession of residential premises if she deposits 25% of dues within four weeks, without adjudicating maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Protection against dispossession for eight weeks contingent on depositing 25% dues within four weeks.

What the court decided

Smt. Kusum Rajaram Suryawanshi Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4837 OF 2015

¶4

Kusum Rajaram Suryawanshi .… Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Anr. …. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Amitkumar D. Sale for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Nikhil Rajani, i/by M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶8

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J. DATE : 26TH JULY, 2016.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

After hearing both sides and once we find that the Petitioner has an alternate equally efficacious remedy, i.e. Appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short "SARFAESI Act") , then, by keeping open all contentions, we can relegate the Petitioner to that remedy. It is equally efficacious and all contentions, including on the maintainability of the proceedings at the instance of a Co-operative Bank, can be raised before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶11

The Petitioner's counsel submits that the second Respondent-Bank is likely to dispossess the Petitioner from the residential premises at Colaba, Mumbai. Since it is the residential premises of the Petitioner and

¶12

1/2

¶13

WP-4837-15.doc

¶14

her family is residing therein, including her school going grand-child, it is prayed that a reasonable time be granted to the Petitioner to deposit the sum and to avoid dispossession.

¶15

This request is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent-Bank.

¶16

After hearing both sides and only in order to protect the Petitioner against dispossession from the residential property / premises at Colaba, Mumbai, we direct that, if within a period of four weeks from today, the Petitioner deposits with the second Respondent-Bank 25% of the amount due and payable and balance 25% within four weeks thereafter, the Petitioner shall not be dispossessed in pursuance of the measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for a period of eight weeks from today.

¶17

In the event there is a default in making deposit of the initial sum, this protection will come to an end automatically and without any further reference to the Court.

¶18

To test the bonafides, let the Petitioner not be dispossessed for a period of four weeks from today.

¶19

Needless to clarify that, the Petitioner's compliance with our directions will be without prejudice to her rights and contentions, including in any appeal / application before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶20

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶22

2/2

¶23

WP-4837-15.doc

Smt. Kusum Rajaram Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Kusum Rajaram Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Anr.

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

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate, Vs Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

The Commisssioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate Vs M/S Mahankali Ssk Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad Commissionerate Vs M/S. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.

Smt. Kusum Rajaram Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Anr.

Sanjay Rajaram Babaria (Handicapped) Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Sonal Nathram Ajna Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Developement Authority and Anr.