Bombay High Court
Ali Agha Namazi vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 September, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:35533-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12289 OF 2024
Ali Agha Namazi, ]
R/of Handewadi, Pune and Grant Road, Mumbai ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Office of the Government Pleader. ]
2. Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., ]
Mohd. Ali Road, Mumbai. ]
3. Hanniyeh Ali Namazi, ]
R/of Grant Road, Mumbai. ]
4. Zehra Ali Namazi, ]
R/of Grant Road, Mumbai. ]
5. Ahmad Agha Namazi, ]
R/of Jacob Circle, Mumbai. ] .. Respondents
Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane with Ms. Reshma Nandilath, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Ms. K.N. Solunke, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1-
State of Maharashtra.
Mr. T.N. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. }
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Ms. K.N. Solunke, the learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives notice for respondent no.1 and
Mr. T.N. Tripathi, learned counsel waives notice for respondent no.2.
Service on respondent nos.3 to 5 is dispensed with.
19-WP-12289-2024.doc
Dixit
2. The petitioner has preferred Securitization Application (D) No.971
of 2023 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune. In the said proceedings,
interim relief was sought seeking to restrain the 2 nd respondent - Bank
from taking physical possession of the subject property. On 16 th May 2023,
the learned Presiding Officer passed an interim order below Interim
Application No.1094 of 2023 restraining the Bank from taking possession
subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the amount mentioned in the
Demand Notice. That order was complied by the petitioner. The Bank
however approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for
challenging the said order by filing Miscellaneous Appeal No.107 of 2023.
The Bank sought interim relief in the said proceedings by filing Interim
Application No.576 of 2023 and on 7 th August 2024, the following order
was passed :-
"There shall be an interim stay about the
operation of the impugned order.
List on 24.09.2024 for hearing."
. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that no
reasons whatsoever have been indicated by the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal for staying the order dated 16 th May 2023 passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal. Undisputedly, all the conditions imposed by the Debts
19-WP-12289-2024.doc
Dixit
Recovery Tribunal have been complied with by the petitioner. On a
reading of the impugned order, it cannot gathered as to what reason
weighed with the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in granting an
interim stay. On the ground that the same is an unreasoned order which
would result in dispossession of the petitioner, a case for interference has
been made out.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Bank submits that the
proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Securitization
Application (D) No.971 of 2023 could be expedited so as to ensure that
the proceedings are finally decided. The learned counsel for the Bank
further submits that within a period of two weeks from today, written
statement would be filed in the said proceedings.
5. We find that by directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide the
said proceedings, the same would be in the interest of both parties. In that
view of the matter, the following order is passed :-
(a). The order dated 7th August 2024 passed by the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Interim Application
No.576 of 2023 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.107 of
2023 is quashed and set aside on the ground that it is
an unreasoned order.
19-WP-12289-2024.doc
Dixit
(b) The proceedings in Securitization Application (D)
No.971 of 2023 are expedited.
(c) The 2nd respondent-Bank to file written statement
within a period of two weeks from today. Rejoinder, if
any, be filed within a further period of three weeks.
(d) Accordingly, it is directed that within a period of three
months from filing of the written statement,
Securitization Application (D) No.971 of 2023 shall be
decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.
(e) All points on merits are kept open.
(f) In view of these directions, Miscellaneous Appeal
No.107 of 2023 does not survive. It is accordingly
disposed of.
6. Rule accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA
SNEHA ABHAY 19-WP-12289-2024.doc
ABHAY DIXIT
DIXIT Date:
2024.09.04
Dixit
18:28:54
+0530
