Disposed

John David Gogula and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through G.P. and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2024WP/5310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Guarantors challenged attachment of their salary accounts pursuant to a recovery certificate issued against a principal borrower. Holding salary attachment could last only twenty-four months and that attached immovable property could be proceeded against, the Court lifted the attachment of salaries.

What did the court decide?

Attachment of petitioners' salaries lifted; respondents free to recover balance dues from attached immovable property.

John David Gogula and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:31004-DB

¶2

Diksha Rane 906. WP 5310-24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5310 OF 2024

¶5

JOHN DAVID GOGULA & ORS. ..PETITIONERS VS.

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

THR. G.P. & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Adv. Ashok Mishra a/w. Adv. Shubham Mishra for petitioners. Adv. Bhupesh V. Samant for respondent nos. 3 & 4. Mrs. T. D. Goswami, AGP for State.

¶9

-----------CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ

¶10

DATE : 2^nd August 2024.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶12

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶13

2. The grievance raised by the petitioners is with regard to the action initiated by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in attaching the salary accounts of the petitioners. It is their case that the respondent no.6 is the principal borrower and the petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 4 stood as guarantors. Recovery certificate came to be issued on 31^st March 2017 in proceedings initiated by the respondent nos.2 to 4. Pursuant thereto the respondent nos. 2 to 4 took steps to recover

¶14

the requisite amounts. In that process, the salary accounts of the petitioners came to be attached.

¶15

¶16

Diksha Rane 906. WP 5310-24.doc

¶17

3. Heard the learned counsel and perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the attachment of the salary accounts of the petitioners commenced from 2017-18. As of today, an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- has been recovered. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.3, it has been stated that as of 30^th June 2024, an amount of Rs.33,76,441/- with interest is still recoverable. The attachment orders in question were issued on 23^rd December 2017. The period of more than twenty-four months has since lapsed from such attachment. The attachment of the salary beyond twenty-four months would not be permissible in view of the Section 60(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is also not in dispute that the immovable property that was offered by way of security has been attached by the respondent nos.2 to 4 and attempts to sell that property in public auction are being undertaken.

¶18

4. We find in these facts that it would be necessary for respondent nos.2 to 4 to execute the recovery certificate in accordance with law. The immovable property being already attached and taken possession of, the same can be proceeded against. The attachment of the petitioners’ salary accounts after expiry of twenty-four months does not appear to be legally justified.

¶19

¶20

Diksha Rane 906. WP 5310-24.doc

¶21

5. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:-

¶22

(I) The attachment of the petitioners’ salaries pursuant to the order dated 31^st March 2017 is lifted since the same could have continued only for twenty-four months. In other words, their salaries would no longer be attached.

¶23

(II) Respondent nos.2 to 4 are free to take further steps for recovery of the dues by proceeding against the immovable property of the borrowers/guarantors for recovery of the balance amount of dues.

¶24

6. Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

¶25

costs.

¶26

[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

¶27

¶28

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/08/2024 18:20:06

John David Gogula and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through G.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John David Gogula and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through G.P. and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Ch Ltd. Throu. Authorised Representative vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Op Socieites and Anr.

Tejas Balaso Kasar Thr. Father Balaso Bhikaji Kasar and Ors. vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Thr. Commissioner and Ors.

Subhash Namdeo Sabale and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Home Dept. and Ors.

Axis Bank Ltd., vs the Additional District Magistrate, Revenue and Forest Department, District Collector and District

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd, vs the State of Mharashtra and 5 Ors.

Rohit J. Vora, Regn. No. IBBI/IPA-003/IP-N00071/2017-18/10556 vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India