Sulochana Prurshottam Gindodiya ... vs Agrasen Sahakari Patsanstha ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14998 Bom

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     926 WRIT PETITION NO.11139 OF 2021

         SULOCHANA PRURSHOTTAM GINDODIYA AND OTHERS
                                VERSUS
        AGRASEN SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT THROUGH
             LIQUIDATOR MANOJ MADHUKAR CHAUDHARI
                                  ...
            Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Subodh P. Shah
                                  ...

                                     CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATED : 13/10/2021

PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are the decree holders armed with a decree

of eviction passed against the respondent credit society currently

under liquidation. They aggrieved by the order passed by the

executing court on the respondent's application (Exh-61), by

which it requested the executing court to direct the petitioners to

allow it access to the hard disks of the computers left behind by it

in the demised premises while vacating it and to allow it to

retrieve the data. After hearing both the sides by the impugned

order the executing court permitted the respondent to retrieve

the data.

2 926 wp 11139-21

3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners would submit

that in fact the respondent had simply abandoned the demised

premises leaving behind various movable properties including the

computers. While executing the possession warrant even the

movable property including the computers were handed over by

the bailif in the custody of the petitioners. The impugned order

travels beyond the scope of the decree. Once having delivered

the movable and immovable property in possession of the decree

holder, there was no question of directing the petitioners to

divulge even the data stored in the computers. The security

interest has been created in favour of the petitioners and no

further order could have been passed depriving them of such

security. The decree is still to be fully satisfed. The petitioners

are entitled to even seek a permission to sell the movable

property to realize the decreetal amount.

4. The learned advocate would further seek to draw analogy on

the lines to the provisions of Section 108 Part B, clause (h) of the

Transfer of Property Act to the efect that the lessee i.e. the

respondent could have removed whatever was available in the

demised premise while vacating and not afterwards. The

impugned order has the efect of permitting the respondent to

3 926 wp 11139-21

make an exception to this provision.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the

papers.

6. It is a matter of record that the petitioners are armed with a

decree of eviction and have been delivered possession of the

demised premise in execution of such a decree. The dispute as

can be appreciated is only in respect of request of the respondent

judgment debtor to have access to the computers which were left

behind by it in the demised premise and which admittedly are in

the custody of the petitioners, with the leave of the executing

court so as to enable it to retrieve the data. Needless to state

that the petitioners are entitled to and the executing court may

permit him under Order XXI Rule 43 of CPC to sell the movable

property including the computers.

7. The question here is regarding an intangible thing in the

form of data that is stored in the hard disks of the computers.

One cannot before hand judge as to what is actually stored in

hard disks of those computers. The respondent is a credit society

which is under liquidation. The request is now being made on its

4 926 wp 11139-21

behalf to retrieve that data, perhaps, with some hope that some

important matter could be retrieved by the liquidator to help him

to complete the liquidation process. If such is the state of afairs,

in my considered view, the request of the respondent is indeed

innocuous. Though the petitioners have a security interest over

the movable property in the form of computers, in my considered

view it would be like stretching too far if the petitioners can be

said to have interest even in the data that is stored in the

computers.

8. The executing court in its discretion has permitted the

respondent to retrieve the data. There is no perversity and

arbitrariness. The writ petition is dismissed.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) vsm/-