Writ petitions challenging the fixation of upset price for pledged properties. The Court held notice to widow and daughter was not mandatory as sons were heard and procedure followed. Petitions dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2009 OF 2018 (Vimalbai Meghshyam Mahajan and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others)
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2010 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2011 OF 2018
Mr.Sanket S.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.R.Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for State.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 07/03/2018
PER COURT :
khs/MAR.2018/2009-d
2
the house property of Meghshyam is pledged as a security in the said loan accounts. Recovery certificates u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act with regard to these 3 loan accounts have been issued in 2004 and neither the borrower nor the guarantor has challenged these certificates.
khs/MAR.2018/2009-d
3
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/MAR.2018/2009-d
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the fixers upset price without hearing the widow and daughter was procedurally flawed
Whether the impugned order setting upset price was perverse or erroneous
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vimalbai Meghshyam Mahajan and another
State of Maharashtra and others
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
