Allowed

Ram S. More and Vijeta Ram More v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2020WP/509/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court quashed orders appointing a Special Recovery Officer to take physical possession of a flat for attachment and sale, directing a hearing to be granted to the petitioner, a bona fide claimant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 4 December 2019 and 20 January 2020 were quashed; matter remitted to Special Recovery Officer to hear the Petitioner.

Ram S. More and Vijeta Ram More Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

WPL 381-2020.doc

¶2

sat

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 381 OF 2020

¶5

Ram S. More & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Anoshak Daver with Nishit Tanna, Sachin Masurkar, Sunitha P and Archana Bhasare I/b.Sachin Masurkar for Petitioners. Ms.Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 7 State. Mr.Mahendra M. Agavekar for Respondent No.3. Mr.Mandar Soman for Respondent Nos.4 to 6..

¶7

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶8

DATE : 5 FEBRUARY 2020

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This writ petition challenges a recovery notice issued by Special Recovery Officer of Respondent No.3 Bank under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder for taking physical possession of a flat, which forms the subject matter of the present petition. The recovery notice is issued in pursuance of an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 4 December 2019 appointing the authority as Special Recovery Officer for taking physical possession of the flat. The grievance of the Petitioner herein, who claims to be a bona fide purchaser of the subject flat with value and without notice, is that before taking any steps in respect of the subject flat, no hearing was given to the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner attended some dates for hearing of the matter, no hearing was given to him on those dates and suddenly the impugned orders came to be passed.

1 / 2

WPL 381-2020.doc

sat

2 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Special Recovery Officer for hearing the Petitioner in the matter of attachment and sale of the subject flat. The impugned orders dated 4 December 2019 and 20 January 2020 are, accordingly, quashed and set aside and Respondent No.2 Special Recovery Officer is directed to hear the Petitioner in the matter of attachment, recovery of possession and sale of the subject flat. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open.

¶15

3 The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

2 / 2

Ram S. More and Vijeta Ram More v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram S. More and Vijeta Ram More v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

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

Farhad Zarir Suraliwalla (Debtor'S Own Pettion) Vs ---

Rakesh Jaysukhlal Sanghvi Vs M/S Unique Drums and Container and Employee'S Provident Fund Commissioner Applicant

Century Consultants Ltd. Vs Anil M.Shah/Tax Recovery Officer-Applicant

Union of India Vs Gadanna Naganna and Another

Azeemkhan Mohammadkhan Inamdar Vs the General Manager Best Undertaking

Mohammed Saeed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.