Disposed

Ms. Tasneem Shakir v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jul 2021WP/3109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging eviction by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition seeking liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The court accepted the undertaking of the respondent to refrain from eviction steps, disposed of the writ as withdrawn without costs, and reserved liberty for further judicial recourse.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn without costs; liberty reserved to apply before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ms. Tasneem Shakir Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

4-WP-3109-2021

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3109 OF 2021

¶5

Ms. Tasneem Shakir .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Huzefa Nasikwala i/by Nasikwala Law Office for petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State.

¶10

Ms. Sakshi Sahoo i/by Rawal Shah and Co. for respondent No.2.

¶11

C0RAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J.

¶12

DATE : JULY 30, 2021

¶13

PC :

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved because the respondent no.2, a secured creditor within the meaning of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter “the SARFAESI Act”, for short) has initiated steps to evict her from the premises of which she claims to be a tenant. According to the petitioner, such an attempt on the part of the respondent no.2 is in the teeth of the orders passed from time to time by the Full Bench of this Court in Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2021.

¶15

Ms. Sahoo, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 raises objection to the maintainability of this

¶16

¶17

4-WP-3109-2021

¶18

writ petition having regard to measures taken by such respondent under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and in view of availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner under Section 17 thereof. She, however, makes a statement that the respondent no.2 shall not take any steps to evict the petitioner till Friday next (August 6, 2021).

¶19

Having heard such submission of Ms.Sahoo, Mr. Nasikwala, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. He also seeks liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for relief.

¶20

We accept the statement of Ms. Sahoo that no steps to evict the petitioner shall be taken till Friday next (August 6, 2021).

¶21

The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn, without costs. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to apply before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction for such relief as may be available to her in law. All contentions are left open.

¶22

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2021.07.30
15:58:59
+0530

¶24

Ms. Tasneem Shakir v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Tasneem Shakir v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Shri. Tukaram Rajba Phavade Vs the Regional Dairy Development Officer, Pune Region and Anr.

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Secretary Maharashtra Public Sevice Commission Vs Sandeepkumar S. Nalavade

The Secretary Maharashtra Public Sevice Commission Vs Sandeepkumar S. Nalavade

Chaitali Popatrao Pachpute Vs Maharashtra Public Services Commission and Anr.