Dismissed

Shriram Housing Finance Limited through Authorised Officer Mr Rramod S Supekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Feb 2022WP/1017/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and a possession notice was filed. The Court held that since the Debts Recovery Tribunal is seized with the matter, the writ petition should not be entertained and the petitioner is directed to approach the DRT.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

Shriram Housing Finance Limited through Authorised… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 914-wp 1017-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2022

¶4

Shriram Housing Finance Limited
Through Authorized Officer,
Mr. Pramod S. Supekar

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Chandrashekhar S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 16th FEBRUARY 2022.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

2. The borrower it appears has challenged the order under Section

¶15

14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as
“SARFAESI Act”), so also possession notice issued by the Circle Officer
by filing Securitisation Application No. 112 of 2019. Interim order is
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in the said Securitisation
Application wherein notice issued by the Circle Officer of taking over
the possession is quashed. The Securitisation Application is still

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

2 914-wp 1017-2022.odt

¶18

pending wherein the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is a
subject matter of challenge.

¶19

3. When the DRT is already seized with the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner may take steps before the DRT as is permissible under law in the pending Securitisation Application.

¶20

4. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No

¶21

costs.

¶22

( S. G. DIGE )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

P.S.B.

¶24

2 of 2

Shriram Housing Finance Limited through Authorised Officer Mr Rramod S Supekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Housing Finance Limited through Authorised Officer Mr Rramod S Supekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Queens College of Education for Women through Its Secretary Shaikh Rafiq Ahemad Maksud Ahemad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Acharya Kulam Foundation Avhane Thr Its President Secretary Visal Tryambak Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradip Tulshiram Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Narayan Onkar Sapkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Bhagwati Construction through Its Proprietor Shri Vikas Deorao Deosarkar Vs Nagar Panchayat Himayatnagar

Unmesh Yoganand Gandhale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others