Mukesh Rasiklal Jariwala v. State Bank Of India And ORS

1/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date:

2022.08.05 17:39:50 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PURTI PRASAD PARAB WRIT PETITION NO. 9164 OF 2022 Mukesh Rasiklal Jariwala ....Petitioner V/s.

State Bank of India and Ors.

...Respondents

---- Mr. Charles D'souza a/w Mr. V.N. Ajikumar i/b V.N. Ajikumar for Petitioner. Mr. Shashikant Gaikwad i/b SSP Legal for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Chinmayee Ghag for Respondent No.3.

Mr. Vineet Mittal, Chief Manager, State Bank of India present. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & A.S. DOCTOR, JJ.

DATED : 3rd AUGUST 2022 P.C. :

1.

In this petition, petitioner has raised a grievance that notwithstanding repayment of the entire loan amount, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not returned the original title deeds of subject mortgaged property alongwith no dues certificate and other secured documents and also not handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the mortgaged property.

2.

When the petition was called out in the pre-lunch session, Mr.Gaikwad requested the matter be stood over to post-lunch session so that he could take instructions. Accordingly, the matter was stood over. 3.

Post-lunch, parties have tendered Minutes dated 3rd August 2022. The Minutes signed by petitioner, authorised representative of

2/5 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their respective advocates is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.

4.

For ease of reference, the Minutes is scanned and reproduced herein below :-

3/5

4/5 5.

As regards the recovery proceeding mentioned therein, both counsel requests the court that due to large pendency of matters before Respondent No. 3 - Recovery Officer, this court be pleased to dispose the said recovery proceeding.

6.

Accordingly, Recovery Proceeding No. 263 of 2005 pending before the Recovery Officer, DRT - III is hereby closed and disposed. A copy of this order shall be filed in the DRT - III Registry who shall note closure of the said proceeding.

7.

Order in terms of the Minutes.

8.

All statements accepted as an undertaking to this court. All undertakings accepted.

9.

At this stage, Mr. D'souza requests the court to grant some cost. Mr.Gaikwad is requesting not to grant any cost. In our view, the request of Mr. D'souza is justified because petitioner would not have come to this court but for the inaction on the part of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. What Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did today like handing over the title deeds, vacant possession and issuing no due certificate, could have been done earlier without driving petitioner to approach this court. By its act/omission, respondent has also burdened the already over burdened court and forced petitioner to incur legal costs.

5/5 10.

In the circumstances, Respondent No.1 - State Bank of India is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as cost to petitioner and this amount shall be paid within one month from today by way of cheque or pay order or to the credit of the advocate on record for petitioner.

11.

Petition disposed.

(A.S. DOCTOR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)