ENKAY CASTLE THROUGH PROPRIETOR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH G.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
In view of above, Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 204 OF 2020 ENKAY CASTLE THROUGH PROPRIETOR ….PETITIONER N.K. BHUPESH BABU V/s. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH G.P. …..RESPONDENTS AND ORS Mr. Manoj Harit ii/b Mr. Manoj Harit & Co. Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. H. Kankal AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Sasikumar T.C. for Respondent nos. 4 to 7 CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JUNE 14, 2022. P.C.: 1) Pursuant to the order dated 30/05/2018 and 26/04/2018 passed by MahaRERA Mumbai in proceedings Complaint No. CC0060000000012668, Complaint No. CC006000000001933 and Complaint No. CC006000000012712, Tahsildar Panvel attached property of the Petitioner of which modification is sought in the present Petition.
Operative part
15.204.2020 WP.doc 2) Submissions of counsel for the Petitioner are, value of the property attached is manifold more than liability fastened on the Petitioner. According to him, valuation report itself justifies the claim of the Petitioner which the Petitioner has produced on record. 3) According to counsel for the Petitioner, As such, order impugned warrants interference to the extent of modification thereby directing Tahsildar to attach property to the extent to which mentioned in the valuation report so as to satisfy financial liability fastened on the Petitioner. 4) 5) The aforesaid valuation report is disputed by the Respondent. Be that as it may, in response to the Court’s query, counsel for the Petitioner on instructions made a motion for withdrawal of the Petition with liberty to approach the Tahsildar thereby seeking modification of the order of attachment to the extent of such property which shall remain attached for the purpose of satisfaction of the financial liability fastened by the orders passed by Maha Rera referred above. 6) In view of above, Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
15.204.2020 WP.doc 7) Needless to clarify that Tahsildar shall decide the prayer for modification expeditiously, however, after hearing parties to the Petition.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of above, Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Jun 2022. The bench was NITIN W SAMBRE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.