Mukundbhai v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr S.U. Chaudhari, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, h/f Mr. S.B. Gorde, advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. A.B.Kale, advocate for respondent No.6 ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4490 OF 2011 Gulab Handu @ Narayan Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr N.N. Desale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos.1, to 4. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, h/f Mr. S.B. Gorde, advocate for respondent No.5 & 6 Mr. A.B.Kale, advocate for respondent No.9 ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6364 OF 2011 Pushpadanteshwar Sakhar Karkhana Kamgar Va Karmachari Sanghtana, Nandurbar ...Petitioner Versus wp3032.11 -2- The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr Dhananjay B. Thoke, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos.1, to 4. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, h/f Mr. S.B. Gorde, advocate for respondent No.5 & 6 Mr. A.B.Kale, advocate for respondent No.9 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The Apex Court, in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413, in para 27, has observed thus;-
27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.
2 In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the wp3032.11 -3- present writ petitions in as much as the petitioners are at liberty to raise all grounds, as are raised in these petitions, before the appropriate authority under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3 The petitions are accordingly disposed of. ( M. T. JOSHI, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.) rlj/
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 29 Aug 2011. The bench was R GAVAI, M T JOSHI, B R GAVAI.
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.