The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. M/S Jay Industries and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2025IA/1602/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sheriff of Bombay; break open suit premises; police protection; valuation obstructed by opponent/judgment-debtor side; execution of arbitration award; award holder co-operative bank; Rs.25 Lakhs award; 16% interest; award of year 2016; Rs.50,000 deposit with Sheriff; valuer M/s. Neelam Arch; Valuation Notice acknowledged then obstructed; Goregaon (East) Flat Nos.102-103 Vasant Apartment; Jay Industries; Nikita Ramesh Dedhia; interim application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); no order as to costs; unrepresented respondents, no reply filed.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) — direction to the Sheriff of Bombay to break open the suit premises with police protection and have the suit premises valued; disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶¶26

The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs M/S Jay Industries and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a direction to the Sheriff of Bombay to break open the suit premises with police protection and have the suit premises valued, in view of Opponent No.1's refusal and obstruction of the valuation of the immovable property.

¶¶13

Court's answer

The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., direction to the Sheriff of Bombay to break open the suit premises with police protection and have the suit premises valued.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

No reply was filed to the Interim Application; accordingly, the contentions raised in the Interim Application remained unchallenged.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Madhav J. Jamdar, J. — Interim Application No.1602 of 2025 in Execution Application No.402 of 2017. The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Goregaon East Branch), award holder under an award stated by counsel to be for Rs.25 Lakhs with interest at 16% and of the year 2016, sought a direction to the Sheriff of Bombay to break open the suit premises (Flat Nos.102 and 103, Vasant Apartment, J.P. Nagar Road No.1, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063) with police protection for valuation. Earlier, the Sheriff had appointed M/s. Neelam Arch as Valuer and directed a Rs.50,000 deposit; on 13th November 2024 the Bailiff and Valuer attended the premises, where Opponent No.1 (Jay Industries through Sole Proprietor Nikita Ramesh Dedhia) acknowledged the Valuation Notice but refused and obstructed the valuation and inspection. The Respondents were served, none appeared and no reply was filed; the contentions remained unchallenged. Held: the Interim Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶1

22-IA-1602-2025.doc

¶2

Arjun

¶3

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

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1602 OF 2025 IN

¶5

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.402 OF 2017

¶6

Digitally signed by ARJUN ARJUN VITTHAL VITTHAL KUDHEKAR KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.12.20 12:20:57 +0530

¶7

The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., …Applicant Goregaon East Branch. IN THE MATTER BETWEEN The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., …Disputant Goregaon (East) Branch. Versus Jay Industries …Respondents Through Sole Proprietor Nikita Ramesh Dedhia & Ors.

¶8

Mr. Jayant Gaikwad, for the Applicant/Disputant-Bank.

¶9

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 17 DECEMBER 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The Applicant i.e. Award Holder has sought the following reliefs

¶12

in the Interim Application :-

¶13

“a. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue direction to the Sheriff of Bombay to break open the suit premises with police protection and valued the suit premises.

¶14

b. for cost of the Interim Application be provided;

¶15

c. for such further and other relief's as the nature and circumstances of the case may require;”

¶16

¶17

22-IA-1602-2025.doc

¶18

In the Interim Application, it is stated that the Opponent No.1 was present before the Sheriff of Bombay along with Advocate on 24th September 2025 and on that date the Sheriff of Bombay appointed M/s. Neelam Arch as a Valuer for valuation of immovable property of Opponent No.1 situated at the premises bearing Flat Nos.102, 103, Vasant Apartment, J.P. Nagar Road No.1, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063 (“ said premises ”) and directed the Applicant to deposit Rs.50,000/with the office of Sheriff of Bombay within a period of one week. The next meeting was scheduled on 24th October 2024. In the said meeting the Sheriff has orally directed the Opponent No.1 and her Advocate to cooperate the Valuer for valuation of the suit premises. On 13th November 2024, the Bailiff of Sheriff of Bombay along with Valuer and representative of the Applicant have attended the residential premises of Opponent No.1 i.e. the said premises, for service of Valuation Notice and for valuation of the said premises. The Opponent No.1 duly received the said Valuation Notice and acknowledged the same, however, the Opponent No.1 refused and obstructed the Valuer doing the valuation of the suit premises and has not allowed the Valuer and Bailiff of Sheriff of Bombay to take inspection for valuation of the immovable property and obstructed the said proceedings.

¶19

Mr. Jayant Gaikwad, learned Counsel, states that the Award is for Rs.25 Lakhs along with the interest at the rate of 16%. The Award is of

¶20

¶21

22-IA-1602-2025.doc

¶22

the year 2016. He states that the Applicant is a Co-operative Bank and therefore the public money is involved.

¶23

Mr. Jayant Gaikwad, learned Counsel, submits that the said conduct of the Applicant is to frustrate the execution of the Award and therefore the Interim Application seeking above reliefs be granted in the interest of justice.

¶24

The Respondents have been served. However, none appears for the Respondents. No reply has been filed to the Interim Application. Thus, the contentions raised in the Interim Application have remained unchallenged.

¶25

Accordingly, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶26

The Interim Application is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶27

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶28

The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. M/S Jay Industries and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. M/S Jay Industries and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Ramadhar Mishra vs Chandrabali Rajnarayan Shukla (Deceased) Thr. Lrs and Anr.

Hirawati Bhaskar Ate vs Bhaskar Patruji Ate and Ors.

Surekha Bharat Dhumal and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs M/S R.K.D Telecom Pvt.Ltd and 4 Ors.

Amarjit Singh Kohli vs Kamaljit Kaur Kohli

Puneet Nitin Mehra vs Avni Jasraj Mehra