Dismissed

Rajesh Babaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra through Agp and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Apr 2024WP/6174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, holding the petitioner ignored the alternate remedy under Section 17. The Court directed police to register an FIR for trespass by the petitioner and allowed a fresh writ for possession restoration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; the Police were directed to register an FIR for trespass.

Rajesh Babaji Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

11.WP.6174.24.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6174 OF 2024

¶4

Rajesh B. Sawant ..Petitioner

¶5

Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2024.05.0217:36:09 +0530

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..Respondents

¶8

None present for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Sanjiv Punalekar , Advocates for Respondent No.2.

¶10

Mr. K. B. Dighe , Addl.G.P. with Ms Tanaya Goswami, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶11

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : APRIL 30, 2024

¶12

P.C.

¶13

When the above Writ Petition is called out, none appears on behalf of the Petitioner. We find that this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. What is challenged in the above Writ Petition is an order dated 5^th August, 2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶14

2 The Petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which he has not availed of till date.

¶15

Page 1 of 2 APRIL 30, 2024

¶16

Aswale

¶17

11.WP.6174.24.DOC

¶18

In these circumstances, the above Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

3 We are informed by Respondent No.2 that after Respondent No.2 took physical possession of the secured asset pursuant to the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Petitioner herein (the borrower) has trespassed into the property. The Police are refusing to register an FIR because of the pendency of the present Writ Petition.

¶20

4 We clarify that since we have dismissed the Writ Petition, the Police machinery shall ensure that the FIR is taken on record, and thereafter taken to its logical conclusion. Since it is the case of Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner has trespassed into the secured property, it is also at liberty to file a Writ Petition seeking restoration of possession of the secured property.

¶21

5 This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶22

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶23

Page 2 of 2 APRIL 30, 2024

¶24

Aswale

Rajesh Babaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra through Agp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Babaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra through Agp 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

Similar cases

Kunal Jiwarajka and 2 Other Vs Union of India and 11 Other

Indian Bank (E-Allahabad Bank) vs the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ii, Mumbai

Sanjaybhai Bhagwanbhai Kajavadra vs Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs

D. N. Nagar Shivneri Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Office of Govt. Pleader

Ramchandara Baburao Sathe and Ors. Vs Dipak Devram Kadam and Ors.

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs the State of Maharahtra Thr Secretary Special Home Dept. and Ors.