Disposed

M/S. Aarti Company Partnership Firm Thou Part Vallabh Radhakisan Karwa v. Shri. Anil Malleshpa Gore and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2024WP/6709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the petition in a suit for recovery of money. While noting the trial court's rejection of an attachment application due to existing charges, the judge directed that notice be issued to the respondents before admitting the plaintiffs' notice for the attachment of properties.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before admission of the application.

M/S. Aarti Company Partnership Firm Thou Part… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

LSP 1 4 wp 6709.24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Writ Petition No. 6709 of 2024

¶4

M/s. Aarti Company & others … Petitioners V/s. … Shri Anil Malleshpa Gore and others Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni Advocate for the Petitioner

¶6

CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J

¶7

DATE : 19 November 2024.

¶8

Digitally signed byLATA P.C. : LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2024.11.25 16:15:50 +0530

¶9

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners-Plaintiffs.

¶10

They have filed a suit for recovery of money. During the pendency of suit, they have applied for attachment of 10 properties. Those details are given in 3 schedules annexed to the application. They are on Page Nos.82 to 88. The trial Court rejected their application as per the order dated 22 August 2022 (Page-157). The reason for rejection finds place in Para No.17 of the order.

¶11

The trial Court has given the details of 9 properties in Para No.21. Except the property at Sr. No.7 and 9 there is a charge on remaining properties. There are two properties which are mortgaged by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. Those details are not given in the Chart. The trial Court opined that those two properties

¶12

LSP 2 4 wp 6709.24.doc

¶13

are sufficient to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff (Para-17).

¶14

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that even though they are mortgaged, there is a first charge of Siddheshwar Cooperative Bank-Defendant No.3. The submission is there can be an order putting second charge of the plaintiff on the properties. The subsequent development is the property at Sr. No.2 (Page-153) is sold as per the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and after adjusting the amount towards arrears, the Bank has returned the money to the borrower. If there could have been 2^nd charge, the Petitioner could have been benefited is the submission.

¶15

The Respondent needs to be heard.

¶16

Hence, issue notice before admission to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, returnable on 7 January 2025 . Private notice is allowed. Service affidavit be filed.

¶17

(S.M. MODAK, J.)

M/S. Aarti Company Partnership Firm Thou Part Vallabh Radhakisan Karwa v. Shri. Anil Malleshpa Gore and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Aarti Company Partnership Firm Thou Part Vallabh Radhakisan Karwa v. Shri. Anil Malleshpa Gore and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Axis Trustee Services Limited vs M.T. Prem Mala Imo No. 9209972

Mohammed Salim Hajisattar Dayatar and Anr. vs Bela Avinash Mehta

Ramesh Baburao Shinde and Anr. vs Sharad Nagnath Bubane

Ms Charulata Surykant Vedak and Ors. vs Mrs. Meghana Nishit Murdeshwar and Anr.

Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Thou MD vs the Managing Director, Bank of India

1 Bhamabai Tukaram Thorat and Anr. vs 1 Yashwant Bapu Shendge Since Deceased Legal Heirs and Ors.