Santosh Dada Ghule vs the Union of India Throu. the Sec. Dept of Finance and Commerce and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Santosh Dada Ghule vs the Union of India Throu. the Sec. Dept of Finance and Commerce and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of as not entertained; petitioner at liberty to invoke appropriate civil/criminal jurisdiction and seek necessary relief; all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging recovery steps pursuant to an unchallenged arbitral award should be entertained, despite the availability of an alternative remedy and various disputed questions falling for consideration. +1 more

Court's answer

On these facts, the remedy of the petitioner is either to challenge the Award or to contest the execution proceedings initiated pursuant to the Award.

Ratio / Principle

Besides the alternative remedy available, there are various disputed questions that fall for consideration; the Court is therefore not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to invoke appropriate civil/criminal jurisdiction and seek necessary relief; all contentions are kept open.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (A.S. Chandurkar & M.M. Sathaye, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 12997 of 2024, decided 07-01-2025: The petitioner sought to challenge steps taken to recover dues payable to respondent no.4 – Finance Company under a financial assistance agreement, contending that the transport vehicle purchased and hypothecated with the Finance Company was sold without due process of law. The dispute rested on an Award dated 30/09/2022 passed by the Arbitrator after respondent no.3 invoked the arbitration clause; the petitioner did not participate in the arbitration, did not challenge the Award, and execution proceedings thereon were pending. Holding that the petitioner's remedy lay in challenging the Award or contesting the execution proceedings, and that besides the alternative remedy various disputed questions fell for consideration, the Court disposed of the writ petition as not entertained, granting liberty to invoke appropriate civil/criminal jurisdiction and keeping all contentions open. Decisions relied on by counsel (ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma, (2008) 7 SCC 532; Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1; Dhananjay, Patna HC CWJC No.3456 of 2021) were noted but not adopted by the Court.

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12997 OF 2024

Digitally signed by BHARATDASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2025.01.08 19:39:46 +0530

Santosh Dada Ghule …. Petitioner. V/s The Union of India Through Department of Finance and Commerce & Others ….. Respondents.

Mr Mohansinh U. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.P. Kakade, Additional Government Pleader a/w Mr. S.L. Babar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3-State.

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &

M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 7^TH JANUARY, 2025

P.C. :

1] In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the steps taken to recover dues that were payable to the respondent no.4 – Finance Company pursuant to the financial assistance availed by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the transport vehicle that was purchased pursuant to the financial assistance and was hypothecated with the Finance Company came to be sold without following due process of law.

2] It is seen from the record that pursuant to the arbitration clause in the Finance Agreement, respondent no.3 invoked the same. This resulted in an Award dated 30/09/2022 passed by the Arbitrator. In the Award, it is stated that the petitioner did not participate in the said proceedings. This Award has not been challenged by the petitioner. The said Award has thereafter been put to execution and it is informed that the execution proceedings are still pending.

1/2

33 WP-12997-24.doc bdp-sps

3] In these facts, we find that the remedy of the petitioner is either to challenge the Award or to contest the execution proceedings that have been initiated pursuant to the said Award. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decisions in ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 532, Kaushal Kishor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2023) 4 SCC 1 and the judgment of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3456 of 2021 (Dhananjay vs. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Finance and Commerce, New Delhi) submits that this Court may entertain the writ petition.

4] We find that besides the alternative remedy available, there are various disputed questions that fall for consideration. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as not entertained. The petitioner is at liberty to invoke appropriate civil/criminal jurisdiction and seek necessary relief. All contentions are kept open.

[ M. M. SATHAYE,, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

2/2

33 WP-12997-24.doc bdp-sps