Bombay High Court
John David Gogula And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. ... on 2 August, 2024
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:31004-DB
Diksha Rane 906. WP 5310-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5310 OF 2024
JOHN DAVID GOGULA & ORS. ..PETITIONERS
VS.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THR. G.P. & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Ashok Mishra a/w. Adv. Shubham Mishra for petitioners.
Adv. Bhupesh V. Samant for respondent nos. 3 & 4.
Mrs. T. D. Goswami, AGP for State.
------------
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
DATE : 2nd August 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The grievance raised by the petitioners is with regard to the
action initiated by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in attaching the salary
accounts of the petitioners. It is their case that the respondent no.6 is
the principal borrower and the petitioners and the respondent nos.2
to 4 stood as guarantors. Recovery certificate came to be issued on
31st March 2017 in proceedings initiated by the respondent nos.2 to
4. Pursuant thereto the respondent nos. 2 to 4 took steps to recover
the requisite amounts. In that process, the salary accounts of the
petitioners came to be attached.
Diksha Rane 906. WP 5310-24.doc
3. Heard the learned counsel and perused the documents on
record. It is not in dispute that the attachment of the salary accounts
of the petitioners commenced from 2017-18. As of today, an amount
of Rs.4,35,000/- has been recovered. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by
the respondent no.3, it has been stated that as of 30 th June 2024, an
amount of Rs.33,76,441/- with interest is still recoverable. The
attachment orders in question were issued on 23 rd December 2017.
The period of more than twenty-four months has since lapsed from
such attachment. The attachment of the salary beyond twenty-four
months would not be permissible in view of the Section 60(i) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is also not in dispute that the
immovable property that was offered by way of security has been
attached by the respondent nos.2 to 4 and attempts to sell that
property in public auction are being undertaken.
4. We find in these facts that it would be necessary for respondent
nos.2 to 4 to execute the recovery certificate in accordance with law.
The immovable property being already attached and taken possession
of, the same can be proceeded against. The attachment of the
petitioners' salary accounts after expiry of twenty-four months does
not appear to be legally justified.
Diksha Rane 906. WP 5310-24.doc
5. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:-
(I) The attachment of the petitioners' salaries pursuant to the
order dated 31st March 2017 is lifted since the same could have
continued only for twenty-four months. In other words, their salaries
would no longer be attached.
(II) Respondent nos.2 to 4 are free to take further steps for
recovery of the dues by proceeding against the immovable property
of the borrowers/guarantors for recovery of the balance amount of
dues.
6. Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/08/2024 18:20:06
