Dismissed

M/S. Darshan Construction through Partner Dineshkumar Jain v. Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd. through Authorised Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2020WP/296/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal which adjourned a debt recovery appeal. The High Court noted the order did not adjudicate rights. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to argue the limitation issue before the impugned tribunal.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. Darshan Construction through Partner… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1/3 902 WPST 170-2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION ST NO. 170 OF 2020

¶4

M/s.Darshan Construction through Partner Dineshkumar Jain .. Petitioner Versus

¶5

Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd, through Authorized Officer and others .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Ismail Nasikwala with Priya P. I/b S.P. Yadav for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr.Y.S. Khochare, AGP for the State. Mr. Minesh K. Shah I/b M.S. Laxmi Kule for respondent no.2.

¶8

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. AND BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶9

DATED : 7^th JANUARY, 2020.

¶10

P.C:-

¶11

1 Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2^nd January 2020 passed by DRT-II in S.A.No.475 of 2019. filed by one Smita Pandey. The order reads as under :

¶12

“I.A. No.6 of 2020 along with supporting affidavit filed by the advocate preparing for the applicant. Vakalatnama filed by Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶13

Tilak

¶14

2/3 902 WPST 170-2020.doc

¶15

Reply to S.A. filed by advocate appearing for the respondent no.4.

¶16

Vakalatnama filed by advocate appearing for the respondent no.1.

¶17

The basic issue appears to be that the applicant apprehends that the sale by the respondent nos.1 and 2 is not in accordance with the mortgage deed dt.13.04.2016 as to extent of property sold under SARFAESI Act (Schedule-II)

¶18

Tribunal asked the advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2 as to whether he can file an affidavit that the sale is in accordance with the mortgage deed as regards the property sold, he is agreed to file an affidavit to that effect.

¶19

Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to 7^th January 2020 for filing affidavit by the respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶20

2 We find no adjudication returned in the impugned order. The impugned order does not affect any right of the petitioner.

¶21

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that S.A. No.475 of 2019 filed by Smita Pandey is barred by limitation. If this be so, the petitioner can argue before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the issue whether the Appeal filed by Smita can Pandey is within limitation or not. The petitioner additionally call upon the Tribunal to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue.

¶22

Tilak

¶23

3/3 902 WPST 170-2020.doc

¶24

4 Thus, we find no merit in the Writ Petition qua the challenge to the order dated 2^nd January 2020.

¶25

5 Petition is dismissed.

¶26

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶27

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

Tilak

M/S. Darshan Construction through Partner Dineshkumar Jain v. Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd. through Authorised Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Darshan Construction through Partner Dineshkumar Jain v. Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd. through Authorised Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikant Gole and Anita Shashikant Gole Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Sagar Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Cane Agro Energy(India) Limited. Vs Sucden India Private Limited.

Manoj Pathak and Anr. Vs L and T Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Borivali Himkanya Chs Ltd. vs Divisional Joint Registrar and 3 Others