Bombay High Court
Shweta W/O. Vinay Tibrewal vs The State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors on 25 July, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
23-WPL-1881-2017.DOC
Jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1881 OF 2017
1. Mrs. Shweta W/o. Vinay Tibrewal
Age about 37 yrs., of Bombay, R/at. D-
1301A & D-1301-B, Lakshchandi
Apartment, Gokuldham, Goregaon (E),
Mumbai 400 063. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Management Branch,
Mumbai, THE ARCADE, 2nd Floor, World
Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai -
400 005. ...Respondents
Mr. Anand Mishra, i/b Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the State - Respondent No.1
Mr. Prakash Panjabi i/b M/s. Prakash Panjabi & Co. for the
Respondent No.2.
Mr. N.C. Mohanty for the Income Tax Dept., Tax Recovery
Officer.
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED: 25th July 2017
J U D G M E N T :- (Per Riyaz I. Chagla J.)
1. The Petitioner by the present Petition is challenging two
orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court's
23-WPL-1881-2017.DOC
dated 24th October 2016 and 28th April 2017 directing
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to take physical possession in
respect of flats being Flat No. D-1301-A and D-1301-B,
Lakshchandi Apts., Gokuldham, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400
063 ("the said flats"). The Petitioner has also sought
direction from this Court directing Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
to transfer the said flats in the name of the Petitioner's father
making payment of the value of the said flats determined by
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and / or such value as this Court
may direct.
2. The Petitioner claims to be in use, occupation and
possession of the said flats. The Petitioner claims that she
has suffered various cruelties at the hands of her husband
and in-laws. The Petitioner claims that the parents were
made to pay the entire consideration for the said flats. The
Petitioner's husband has deserted her and without the
knowledge of the Petitioner, the Petitioner's husband created
a company and the Petitioner is shown as the director. The
Petitioner's husband allegedly representing the company, had
availed of various credit facilities from Respondent No.2. The
23-WPL-1881-2017.DOC
Petitioner's husband had defaulted in payment of the dues by
the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner claims to have taken
proceedings including filing an FIR as well as two suits before
the City Civil Court. The Petitioner claims that Respondents
Nos. 2 and 3 had valued the said flats at Rs.2.19 Crores.
The Petitioner claims to be willing to pay the value of the said
flats for having the flats transferred in the name of the minor
children of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 had approached
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court's and obtained two
orders dated 24th October 2016 and 28th April 2017 which
are impugned by the present Petitioner. By the said orders, a
Receiver has been appointed to take possession of the said
flats and the Petitioner claims that at the instance of her
husband the Petitioner will be thrown out of the said flat.
3. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner has
sought time for depositing the sum of Rs.1 Crore in this Court
as directed by order of this Court dated 18th July 2017. We
had by said order, directed that the Petitioner shall not be
dispossessed from the said flat on the condition that the
Petitioner deposits Rs.1 Crore in this Court. We had also
23-WPL-1881-2017.DOC
recorded statement of the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the Petitioner is willing to pay the bank the amount
valued by the bank toward the cost of the flat. This application
was vehemently opposed by the bank on the grounds that the
Petitioner's attempts are not bonafide. We had also directed
the Respondent bank to prepare the valuation of the flat and
apprise the Court about the same.
4. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner has once
again sought time for depositing the sum of Rs.1 Cores in this
Court and has made no attempts towards settling the dues of
the Respondent bank.
5. We are of the considered view that the Petitioner is not
interested in complying with said order of this Court and is by
adopting dilatory tactics depriving the Respondent Bank from
taking possession of the said flats which the Respondent
bank is entitled under the orders passed by the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate. We are accordingly not inclined to
consider the merits of this Petition, in view of the conduct of
the Petitioner.
23-WPL-1881-2017.DOC
6. We accordingly dismiss the Petition. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) ( B.R. GAVAI J.)
