Dismissed

Mr. Hariprasad Choksey v. Manadal Adhikari Belapur Karyalaya and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2019WP/7058/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order dismisses a writ petition as infructuous. The petitioner challenged a notice for seizure of premises under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, but the Court held proceedings under the SARFESI Act on the same property had already commenced and possession was being enforced thereunder, rendering the writ petition unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.

Mr. Hariprasad Choksey Vs Manadal Adhikari Belapur… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 7058 OF 2019

¶3

Hariprasad Choksey. Versus

¶4

Mandal Adhikari Belapur and Another.

¶5

..Petitioner.

¶6

..Respondents.

¶7

Ms. Asmita S. Manchandana for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijaykumar B. Dighe for Respondent No. 2.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. Date : July 4, 2019 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking

¶11

following reliefs :

¶12

“(b) That this Hon'ble Court to issue a writ of certiorari/ mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the Notice No. 254/2018 dated 15/06/2019 issued by Respondent No. 1 for seizure and possession pursuant to ex-party recovery certificate dated 08/02/2018.

¶13

(c) That this Hon'ble Court to issue a writ of certiorari/ mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction restraining Respondent No. 1 from seizure and

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

patilsr

¶16

possession of the factory premises of the Petitioner situated at Plot No.168, Sector-25, Udyog Nagar, Opp. Nocil naka, Navi Mumbai–400701 pursuant to ex-party recovery certificate dated 08/02/2018.”

¶17

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 – bank, we have perused the petition and the reliefs sought therein. The Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 15^th June 2019, by which the Circle Officer, Belapur has requested the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to provide police assistance for taking possession of the premises of the Petitioner in pursuance of the certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is also noted by us that in respect of the same property, the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 have already been initiated and the learned counsel for the Respondent–bank informs this Court that possession of the said premises is already taken by following the procedure under the said Act. Not only this, the Petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFESI Act, 2002, assailing the said

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

patilsr

¶20

order. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought by the Petitioner for quashing the impugned order is not sustainable and petition has been rendered infructuous. Resultantly, the same is dismissed as infructuous with no order as to cost.

¶21

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.]

¶22

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶23

3 / 3

¶24

patilsr

Mr. Hariprasad Choksey v. Manadal Adhikari Belapur Karyalaya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Hariprasad Choksey v. Manadal Adhikari Belapur Karyalaya 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

Hussain Mohammed Shattaf @ Hussain Mehboob Khokhawala Vs Humaid Mohammed Humaid Mohammed Shattaf through Poa Madhukar Raviraj Wilson and Anr.

Hussain Mohammed Shattaf @ Hussain Mehboob Khokhawala and Anr. Vs Humaid Mohammed Humaid Mohammed Shattaf through Poa Madhukar Raviraj Wilson and Anr.

Rajkiran Jaywant Maskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kirit Murji Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Sachin Dattatray Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra , through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Baban Ramchandra Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary (Energy), Industries, Energy and Labour Dept. and Ors.