Dismissed

Surendra Appa Shirodkar., v. Bank of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Auth. Officer and Chief Manager and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2018MCA/844/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a miscellaneous civil application seeking recall of an order disposing of two writ petitions. The applicant failed to deposit funds as committed to the court. The court found the explanation that the applicant was on a ship unsatisfactory due to lack of evidence and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Surendra Appa Shirodkar., Vs Bank of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Auth. Officer and Chief Manager and Anr. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

vinita

¶2

1 mca 844-18 dt -22.10.18

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.844 OF 2018 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.577 OF 2011.

¶6

 …
Surendra Appa Shirodkar,Applicant.
Versus
Bank of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. S. N. Joshi and Ms. S. Bhat, Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr. A. Vijaykumar, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶8

Coram : N.M. Jamdar & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. Date : 22 October 2018.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This application is filed for recall of the order dated 12
September 2018 and for a direction to restrain the Bank from
executing the conveyance in favour of the Respondent no.3, the
auction purchaser.

¶11

2.The Applicant had defaulted in repayment of loan. Bank put up
the property, which is an open plot, for sale in an auction. The
auction has concluded long time back and rights are created in favour
of the auction purchaser. Same Petitioner had filed another Writ

¶12

vinita

¶13

2 mca 844-18 dt -22.10.18

¶14

Petition in respect of other relief wherein a shop was in question. Both
petitions were tagged together and heard.

¶15

3.Upon hearing the Petitioner, notice was issued in the Petitions.
Both the Petitions were adjourned from time to time. Orders were
passed on 10 September 2018 thereafter on 12 September 2018,
statements made on behalf of the Applicant that amount would be
deposited, were recorded. However, inspite of committing to the
Court to deposit the amount, amount was not deposited and we had
disposed of both the Writ Petitions holding that the Petitioner is not
entitled to equity jurisdiction of this Court. On this background this
application is filed.

¶16

4.The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
applicant was not contactable and he was on high seas on a ship. We
find this explanation is not satisfactory at all. The Petitioner has styled
himself as an owner of a shop and owner of barge. How he suddenly
found employment as an engineer on a ship is not explained. The
Petitioner is fully aware of all the details regarding the loan that he had
taken. Once he had taken the loan and mortgaged the property, he
should have been serious about prosecuting his petition and he should
have made efforts to give instructions if really he was interested. On
his own showing the Applicant has not shown any interest. In the

¶17

vinita 3 mca 844-18 dt -22.10.18

¶18

application no particulars of the ship, his details of the employment,
on which date he boarded the ship, where he travelled have been
given, let alone any document demonstrating the same has been placed
on record, except the passport. Even otherwise, other family members
could have given instructions to the Advocate. The learned Counsel
for the Respondent Bank has opposed for grant of the prayer
contending that stage has now reached wherein auction purchaser had
also been put in possession of the open plot.

¶19

5. Therefore, what we find is only an attempt to some how prolong the completion of the auction. In these circumstances, application is rejected.

¶20

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

Surendra Appa Shirodkar., v. Bank of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Auth. Officer and Chief Manager and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Surendra Appa Shirodkar., v. Bank of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Auth. Officer and Chief Manager and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meena Madhukar Phal Vs State of Goa, through the Secretary (Education) and 3 Ors.

Tulshidas Naik., Vs the Secretary, Village Panchayat Calangute and Anr.

Deepak C. Shetye and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

The All Goa Government Pensioners Association Rep. by Its President V.V. Vernekar and 2 Ors., Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary.

Aleixo Arnolfo Pereira., Vs Verna Police Station, Thr. Its Investigating Officer, Verna and 4 Ors.

Sandesh G. Shigaonkar., Vs State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Panaji, Police Station, Panaji and 2 Ors.