← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4529/2023disposed off

Sfpl Crop Life Science Private Limited Through Its Director Ashish Subhashchandra Karwa v. Union Bank Of India Through Its Authorised Officer And Others

2023-04-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar2 pages

1 wp 4529.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4529 OF 2023 SFPL Crop Life Science Private Limited through its Directorate Ashish Subhashchandra Karwa .. Petitioner

Versus

Union Bank of India and others .. Respondents Shri Rameshwar F. Totala, Advocate h/f Shri Rahul R. Totala a/w Shri Rajat Malu and Shri Swapnil Lohiya , Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Atul A. Mishra, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM :

NITIN W. SAMBRE AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

DATE :

19TH APRIL, 2023.

FINAL ORDER :

.

Present petition is directed against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad.

2.

Mr. Totala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai is not available till 21st April, 2023 and as such this Court must entertain petition thereby restraining the respondent No. 7 from creating third party interest in relation to the property of the petitioner which was auctioned by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 7.

2 wp 4529.23 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 informs that already sale certificate is issued in favour of the respondent No. 7 and possession is also handed over. 4.

We have appreciated submissions of the rival parties. 5.

The fact remains that the petitioner is seeking relief of status quo to be maintained by the respondent No. 7 in the matter of creating further third party interest till the Presiding Officer of D.R.A.T. Mumbai is available. The fact remains that petitioner has chosen not to prefer appeal till this date and is asking for relief against the respondent No. 7 in the matter, in our opinion, if same is illegal, it is always open for the D.R.A.T. to set aside same in an appeal which the petitioner may prefer. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant any discretionary relief in favour of the petitioner. As such petition is dismissed.

[ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE , J.] bsb/April 23