Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Govt. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6658 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Govt. ... on 1 March, 2024

Author: G.S. Patel

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                                            923-OSWP-1040-2024.DOC




                                                                                                      Arun


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2024


                       Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani                                           ...Petitioner
                             Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra Through Govt Pleader                  ...Respondents
                       & Ors


                       Ms Neeta Jain, i/b Mahesh L Kukreja, for the Petitioner.
                       Mr Abhay Patki, Addl GP, for the Respondent-State.
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
                                                     CORAM      G.S. Patel &
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL                                                         Kamal Khata, JJ.

Date: 2024.03.04 10:07:25 +0530 DATED: 1st March 2024 PC:-

1. Ms Jain is correct in her complaint that a recovery warrant issued by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority ("MahaRERA") cannot be left without execution for years on end.

2. The recovery warrant in this case is dated 20th September 2022. The amount in question is Rs 1,52,35,000/- with interest at 10.4 % per annum and the amount recoverable will now have substantially increased to around Rs 3 crores. The warrant in question has mentioned certain properties at Chembur. But it is not the law that a recovery warrant can be defeated simply by saying that

1st March 2024

923-OSWP-1040-2024.DOC

a particular property cannot, for some reason, be proceeded against and therefore nothing can be done towards recovery. The warrant itself is clear that it is not restricted to a particular property but extends to every other property of the judgment debtor that is within the local limits of jurisdiction.

3. Once the other properties are identified, whether it be a bank account, other movables, or other immovable properties, the recovery warrant must be executed by every known process of execution, distraint and recovery.

4. We direct Respondent Nos 2 and 3 to commence the process of execution of the recovery warrant of 20th September 2022 immediately. We are not disposing of the Writ Petition. We will place it on 4th April 2024 to monitor compliance.

5. List the matter high on board on 4th April 2024.

6. We leave it to the Petitioner to identify for the Recovery Officer, if not already done, the additional properties that may be proceeded against.

 (Kamal Khata, J)                                         (G. S. Patel, J)





                               1st March 2024