Dismissed

Mrs. Ujjawala Dilip Waykule v. Collector and District Magistrate Pune and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2018WP/9130/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9130 of 2017 challenging the Collector's possession order and notice under the DTSA, seeking quashing and resettlement directions. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that an alternate remedy existed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, rendering the writ petition inexecutable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and civil application were dismissed on the ground that an alternate remedy was available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Mrs. Ujjawala Dilip Waykule Vs Collector and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp-9130-17.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9130 OF 2017 WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.20051 OF 2018

¶6

Mrs. Ujjawala Dilip Waykule V/S

¶7

Collector And District Magistrate Pune And Anr.

¶8

....Petitioner

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Mr.Manoj Shirsat i/by Vanita Chandrakant Giri for the Petitioner. Ms.Manasa Tantravahi i/by Afreen Abdul Majeed for Respondent No.2. Mr.A.A.Alaspurkar, AGP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : A.A. SAYED &

¶12

M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 24 JULY 2018

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

This Petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

¶16

“A. Be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other order to call for record and proceedings from District collector and District Magistrate Pune, and after ascertaining the legality of actions of respondents, pursuant to notice under section 13(2) and section 13(4), be pleased to declare that the order of possession dated 26 June 2017 marked as Exhibit E is bad in law and be pleased to quash and set aside the same.

¶17

B. Be pleased to declare that notice under section 13(4) marked as Exhibit D, which was issued without following the mandatory provision under section 13(3) A is bad in law and be pleased to quash the same.

1/2

Uday.P.Kambli

2/2

wp-9130-17.doc

C. Issue writ of mandamus or any other order of that nature, directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner's representation for resettlement as mandated by the Act.

¶23

D. Be pleased to direct the Respondents to not to proceed with the attachment proceedings/ taking possession of the secured asset till disposal of the Writ Petition. “

¶24

The Petitioner has an alternate remedy before the DRT. Hence, we

¶25

are not inclined to entertain the Petition. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. The Civil Application does not survive and to stand disposed of.

¶26

The time taken in prosecuting the present proceedings shall be considered by the DRT in condoning the delay in filing the Securitisation Application by the Petitioner.

¶27

(M.S.KARNIK,J.)

¶28

(A.A.SAYED, J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by Uday Uday Prabhakar Prabhakar Kambli Kambli Date: 2018.07.25 11:37:46 +0530

¶30

2/2

¶31

Uday.P.Kambli

Mrs. Ujjawala Dilip Waykule v. Collector and District Magistrate Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Ujjawala Dilip Waykule v. Collector and District Magistrate Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankalp Developers and 2 Ors. Vs Bank of India and 6 Ors.

Aparna Harihar Chowdhary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs. Shalini Agarwal Vs Capital First Home Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Shailesh Dilip Savaliya Vs Standard Chartered Bank

Mr. Parvez Alam Siddique Vs Bank of India

Shri Saeed Mahfooz Baig Vs Shri. Unmil Shankarrao Sunka and Ors.