Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1518 (BOM)

Naynabe R. Patel v. State of Maharashtra

2021-11-12

MADHAV J.JAMDAR

body2021
JUDGMENT Madhav Jamdar, J. - Heard Mr. V. S. Kapse, the learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Pushplata N. Diwal, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 /State and Mr. Harish R. Pawar appearing for Respondent No.3. 2. The matter has been moved before the Vacation Court on the ground that the Recovery Officer, Co-operative Department, Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra has issued warrant of attachment dated 25th October, 2021. 3. Mr. Kapse points out that by Order dated 8th April, 2021 passed by the Addl. Chief, Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, i/c. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, under Rule 107(11)(vi)(a) of the Maharashtra Co. Op. Societies Rules, 1961, it was directed to take over possession of the property i.e. Flat No.B-9, Knwar Co-operative Society Ltd, Dattatray Cross Road, Santacruz (w), Mumbai-400 054. 4. Mr. Pawar appearing for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 has pointed out Order dated 18th October, 2019 passed by this Court. The Order is set out herein below; 1. Heard Mr.V.S. Kapse, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. 3. Mr.S. H.Kankal, learned AGP waives notice for respondent 3. Mr.Harish Pawar, learned counsel waives notice for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4. Petitioner to serve respondent No.5 through court process or by post or by hand and file affidavit of service. 5. On an oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, leave granted for addition of respondent. 6. Having regard to the fact that recovery certificate was issued against husband of the petitioner way back on 10th December, 2001, followed by warrant of attachment on 21st September, 2016 and also the fact that both appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been rejected, court is not inclined to grant any interim relief at this stage. 7. Stand over to 10th December, 2019. 5. Thus, interim relief was not granted by this Court on 18th October, 2019. 6. Mr. Kapse fairly admitted that the amendment which was allowed as per paragraph 5 of the said Order dated 18th October, 2019 is not carried out till date. 7. However, it is to be noted that the Recovery Certificate was issued on 10th December, 2001 against the husband of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the husband of the Petitioner executed Gift Deed in favour of the Petitioner on 17th May, 2003. 7. However, it is to be noted that the Recovery Certificate was issued on 10th December, 2001 against the husband of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the husband of the Petitioner executed Gift Deed in favour of the Petitioner on 17th May, 2003. Thus, it is clear that this is not a case where the Petitioner is entitled for any interim relief. It is also to be noted that the Recovery Certificate was issued in 2001 and till 2021 the amount could not be recovered. 8. In view of the above factual position on record, no relief can be granted at this stage to the Petitioner. 9. The Petitioner shall amend the Petition by 16th November, 2021 in terms of Order dated 18th October, 2019. 10. Stand over to 18th November, 2021.