Dismissed

Shivaji Kisanrao Ghuge and Anr. v. Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2022WP/1538/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a SARFAESI Act action due to non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of exceptional circumstances. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs; petitioner directed to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Shivaji Kisanrao Ghuge and Anr. Vs Bank of Maharashtra… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

903-aswp1538-2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1538 OF 2022

¶4

Shivaji Kisanrao Ghuge & Anr. …Petitioners V/s. Bank of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

¶5

Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite for the petitioners. Mr. M.M. Pable, AGP for the State.

¶6

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶7

DATE: MARCH 1, 2022

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1. This writ petition dated 25^th January 2022 seeks to assail an order dated 4^th March 2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Nashik in Securitisation Case No. 31 of 2019 initiated by the respondent no. 1 (secured creditor) under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter “the SARFAESI Act”, for short) as well as consequential notice dated 28^th December 2021 issued by the Tehsildar, Nashik informing the petitioner that possession of the secured asset would be taken on 20^th January 2022 between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.

¶10

2. This writ petition suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. Neither the District Magistrate, Nashik nor the Tehsildar, Nashik, is a respondent. This is one of the grounds on which the writ petition ought to fail.

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

A.G.Kulkarni,PS

¶13

903-aswp1538-2022

¶14

3. Even otherwise, we are informed by Mr. Gite, learned advocate for the petitioners that possession of the secured asset, in terms of the impugned notice of possession dated 20^th December 2021, was not taken by the Tehsildar on 20^th January 2022 upon receipt of an intimation that one of the petitioners was infected with Covid.

¶15

4. No fresh notice of possession has been issued. We are of the view that the petitioner has a remedy before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and that none of the exceptions on the fulfillment whereof a writ petition could be entertained despite availability of an alternate remedy is fulfilled in the present case. In such view of the matter, question of entertaining this writ petition does not arise.

¶16

5. The writ petition stands dismissed, without costs.

¶17

6. This order shall, however, not preclude the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy made available to him by section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, in accordance with law.

¶18

7. If the Tribunal is approached, it shall proceed to decide the application of the petitioner without being influenced by dismissal of this writ petition.

¶19

8. All contentions are left open.

¶20

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶21

Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2022.03.02 14:26:44 +0530

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

A.G.Kulkarni,PS

Shivaji Kisanrao Ghuge and Anr. v. Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Kisanrao Ghuge and Anr. v. Bank 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

Omprakash Shreelal Pal Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Marashtra State and Ors.

Kaustubh Ramchandra Paranjape and Anr. Vs the Municipal Commissioner and the Chairman of the Delimitation Committee, Nashik Mun.Corp and Anr.

Ujwal Govind Keskar and Ors. Vs the Municipal Commissioner and the Chairman of the Delimitation Committee, Pune Mun. Corp. and Anr.

Anil Deodatta Gaikwad Vs the Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Communication and Information Tech. Dept. and Ors.

F. a. Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.

Dilip Bapusaheb Gaikwad and Anr. Vs Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. and Ors.