Allowed

Mahendra Shridhar Attarde v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2021WP/3410/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition. Liberty was granted to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Securitization Act, 2002. An extension to meet the limitation for filing the appeal was also noted.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the writ petition and liberty granted to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 18 of the Act.

Mahendra Shridhar Attarde Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

16-WP-3410-2021

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3410 OF 2021

¶5

Mahendra Shridhar Attarde .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. A. M. Saraogi a/w Mr. Anand Mishra for petitioner. Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Siddharth Samantaray a/w Dimple Tejani i/by Medha Rane for respondent No.2.

¶9

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

¶10

DATE : AUGUST 4, 2021

¶11

PC :

¶12

This writ petition dated February 20, 2021 challenges an order dated February 9, 2021 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – 2, Mumbai while deciding Securitization Application No. 21 of 2020.

¶13

A remedy of appeal against the impugned order is available to the petitioner under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter ‘the Act” for short) and referring to such provision, an objection is raised by the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 as regards entertainability of the writ petition.

¶14

¶15

16-WP-3410-2021

¶16

After hearing progressed to some length, Mr. Saraogi, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. He also seeks liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act.

¶17

Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy provided by the Act in accordance with law.

¶18

Section 18(1) of the Act ordains that an appeal thereunder has to be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the event the petitioner presents an appeal against the impugned order dated February 9, 2021 by August 23, 2021, we observe that limitation shall not operate as a bar for consideration of such appeal on merits.

¶19

There will be no order as to costs.

¶20

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

¶21

PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT

¶22

Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2021.08.05 10:47:11 +0530

¶23

Mahendra Shridhar Attarde v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Shridhar Attarde v. the State of Maharashtra 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

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

Chaitali Popatrao Pachpute Vs Maharashtra Public Services Commission and Anr.

The Secretary Maharashtra Public Sevice Commission Vs Sandeepkumar S. Nalavade

Mr. Terence Roman Hendriques Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman Diu, Thru the Joint Secretary (Pwd) and Ors. Vs Hemant Hiralal Chudasama

Sabina Begum Ahmed Zuberi Vs Bombay Enviornmental Action Group and Ors.