Dismissed

Karim Khan S/O Mansab Khan and Others v. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC29 Apr 2024WP/2841/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding possession under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench dismissed the petitioners' request for a four-week extension to approach the DRAT, while remaining unbarred from their future recourse. The court exercised writ jurisdiction without indulgence based on recent Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for extension of four weeks and restraint on taking possession was dismissed; petitioners free to approach DRAT.

Karim Khan S/O Mansab Khan and Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 38wp2841.24.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:5048-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2841/2024

¶5

Shri Karim Khan s/o Mansab Khan and others Vs. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. and another

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

¶7

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Mr. M. Anil Kumar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Pushkar Ghare, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : APRIL 29, 2024.

¶10

The petitioners, alleged tenants since last

¶11

2-3 decades are claiming that the landlord mortgaged the

¶12

property in question, is subsequent to the tenancy created in their favour.

¶13

According to them, the petitioners’ possession was sought to be disturbed in the year 2018 and the petitioners thereafter approached the Court in Second Appeal No.54 of 2018.

¶14

The petitioners are claiming that by virtue of proceedings taken out under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (`SARFAESI Act’ for short), the petitioners

¶15

are likely to lose the possession.

¶16

2 38wp2841.24.odt

¶17

According to him, the petitioners so as to overcome

¶18

the threat as aforesaid by the respondent-bank has approached the DRT and also made an offer to purchase the property at reasonable cost in auction. However, their prayer was rejected and the petitioners intended to file an appeal before DRAT, however, certified copy of the order is yet to receive.

¶19

As such, the contentions are that the petitioners be granted time of four weeks so as to enable them to approach the DRAT thereby restraining the respondent-bank from taking over the possession.

¶20

The prayer is opposed by Mr. Ghare, Counsel appearing for the respondent-bank in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter PHR Invent Education Society Vs. UCO Bank and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 528 ;

¶21

so also the judgment in the matter of CELIR LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others reporte d in (2024) 2 SCC 1 .

¶22

We have considered the submissions.

¶23

We are sensitive to the observations made by the

¶24

Apex Court in paragraphs 55 and 33 of the above referred two judgments wherein the Apex Court has directed the High Courts

¶25

3 38wp2841.24.odt

¶26

to be sensitive while exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter pertaining to the SARFAESI Act.

¶27

That being so, we are not inclined to show indulgence in the matter. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. However, we are not refraining the petitioners from taking recourse before the DRAT.

¶28

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶29

Mukund Ambulkar

Karim Khan S/O Mansab Khan and Others v. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karim Khan S/O Mansab Khan and Others v. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Durgadas Runwale vs Maha. University of Health Science Nashik, Thr. Its Registrar

Samarjeet Chatterjee S/O Shri Ranjeet Kumar Chatterjee Vs Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi

Shri. Saurabh S/O Suresh Junghare Vs the Union of India, Thr. Its Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi and Ors.

Gondia Education Society, Gondia Thr. Its Authorized Signatory Nikhil R. Jain, Gondia and Another Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Social Justice and Special Asst. Dept. Mumbai and Ors.

Balapur Minority Education and Social Welfare Society,Thr. Secretary Imran Ui Haque Vs Ranjit Singh Deol,Principal Secretary Department of School Education , Mumbai

Tanmay S/O Dhanraj More (Minor) Thr. Natural Guardian Father, Dhananjay S/O Vitthalrao More vs the Vice-Chairman/Member Secy, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal