Review petition dismissed as no case for review was made out following court clarification, noting readiness of respondent to consider resolution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
spm 1 909-Rpw-110-2022.doc
Digitally signed by MULEY MULEY SHUBHAM SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO PRAVINRAO Date: 2022.10.31 16:10:45 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 110 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11537 OF 2019
Bhoruka Drum & Allied Ind. Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner
Vs.
Bank of Maharashtra …..Respondent
Mr. Rajneesh Agarwal a/w Mr. Siddharth Samantary for Petitioner. Mr. Jayesh Desai i/by Singh & Co. for Respondent.
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & A. S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE : 21st OCTOBER, 2022
P.C.:-
1/2
spm 2 909-Rpw-110-2022.doc
In the said paragraph, we have only recorded the submission of Mr. Desai and Mr. Desai stands by what is recorded therein. At the same time, Mr. Desai states that the possession was taken only in 2020 and not during the relevant period which was March, 2018.
Mr. Desai states that the observation is correct because at the time when the OTS proposal was made in 2018, the property was not in the possession of Respondent or its Recovery Officer.
(A. S. DOCTOR, J.)
(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
2/2
Bhoruka Drum & Allied Ind. Pvt. Ltd.
Bank of Maharashtra
K. R. Shriram
A. S. Doctor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
