Dismissed

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2023WP/3618/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus entry directions against a Co-operative Society and Manager for access to secured premises. The court held the writ forum was inappropriate due to disputed facts and that no public duty was established against private parties.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of without granting the relief sought, as the writ forum was held inappropriate given disputed facts and lack of a clear public duty against private respondents.

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

24. WP 3618-22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3618 OF 2022

¶4

IIFL Home Finance Ltd and Anr. … Petitioners vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Ms. Disha Karambar S. Mulgaonkar with Ms. Priya Rita i/b Disha Karambar & Associates for Petitioner. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Representative of Petitioner present. Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Sunil Kadam for Respondents No. 2 to 5. Mr. Ajinkya Udone for Respondents No. 6 and 7.

¶6

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 12 APRIL 2023

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶9

2 By this Petition, Petitioner seeks following prayers:-

¶10

“b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased after going into legality and propriety and substantively of the case to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 a/w 227 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No. 6 and 7 to grant entry/access to the authorized representatives of the Petitioner No.1 in respect of (1) Pent House/Flat No. 2201,22nd Floor, Millenium

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

Nikita Gadgil

¶13

WP 3618-22.doc

¶14

Court, Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (2) Pent House/Flat No. 2022, 22^nd Floor, Millenium Court, Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (3) Pent House/Flat No. 2301, 23^rd Floor, Millenium Court, Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (4) Pent House/Flat No. 2302, 23^nd Floor, Millenium Court, Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

¶15

c) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an Order and a direction directing Respondent Nos. 1,6 and 7 to take all possible steps for the Petitioners therefore by invoking the provisions of Articles 226 a/ w 227 of The Constitution of India, 1950 thereby prefer this Petition and seeks an Order and a direction directing Respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7 to take all possible steps for granting entry/access of the secured asset to the Petitioner No.1 and its representatives situated (1) Pent House/Flat No. 2201,22nd Floor, Millenium Court, Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (2) Pent House/Flat No. 2022, 22^nd Floor, Millenium Court, Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (3) Pent House/Flat No. 2301, 23^rd Floor, Millenium Court, Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (4) Pent House/Flat No. 2302, 23^nd Floor, Millenium Court, Oshiwara, Andheri, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

¶16

The prayers which are sought against Respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra, Respondent No. 6 – Co-operative Society and Respondent No. 7- Manager of Co-operative Society.

¶17

3 Petitioner is a Finance Company, secured creditor of assets described in the Petition, which are residential premises, situated in the co-operative society-Respondent No.6. According to the

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

Nikita Gadgil

¶20

WP 3618-22.doc

¶21

Petitioner, Petitioner has obtained possession by making an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) and Petitioner has been put in possession by the District Magistrate.

¶22

4 To a specific query as to whether Petitioner is in possession or not, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner asserts that Petitioner is in possession. Therefore, what is sought is a injunction against private parties that the Co-Operative Society and its manager should be restrained in respect of the Petitioner’s possessory right. Petitioner contends that the Respondents no. 6 and 7 have a public duty to perform and therefore, they are amenable to writ jurisdiction. Under which statute such a public duty is placed on the Respondents No. 6 & 7 qua the Petitioner is not pointed out for issuance of a mandamus.

¶23

5 Even assuming there is a public duty on Respondents No. 6 & 7, a writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in these facts is not an appropriate remedy. Learned Counsel for the borrower has disputed the factual assertions and states that Petitioners are not entitled to take any action. It is quite clear that for consideration of the relief of injunction, several disputed facts will arise for adjudication, which will require evidence. If the Petitioner is in possession, Petitioner would have its remedies open

¶24

3 of 4

¶25

Nikita Gadgil

¶26

WP 3618-22.doc

¶27

in the appropriate Courts of law. Keeping contentions of the parties open in case the Petitioner, approaches the competent Court/forum, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶28

¶29

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶30

Digitally signed byNIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date:2023.04.20 10:58:39 +0530

¶31

4 of 4

¶32

Nikita Gadgil

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

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

The Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Limited, Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

La-Tim Life Style and Resorts Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Noorjhan Wd/O Ahmedali Chaudhary and Anr. Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors.

Modi Car Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.