✦ Bombay High Court · 18 Jul 2011

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR v. S.P.Channe & Ors.

R M SAVANT

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 11. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Recovery Certificate dated 26/9/2002 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society (Housing Finance), Nagpur Division, Nagpur. The said Certificate is in the sum of Rs.19000/-. On…

Judgment

Mr. P.P.Dhok, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 18th July, 2011.

1.

The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Recovery Certificate dated 26/9/2002 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society (Housing Finance), Nagpur Division, Nagpur. The said Certificate is in the sum of Rs.19000/-. On account of the non- payment of the said amount, the warrant of attachment dated 15/6/2011 came to be issued in respect of the properties of the petitioner mentioned therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that against the Recovery Certificate dated 26/9/2009, the petitioner has filed a Revision Application along with the Application for condonation of delay with the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Pune. The petitioner has annexed the postal acknowledgment as Annexure – P-5 to the above petition. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application for condonation of delay as well as the Revision Application are as yet pending, as the petitioner has not received 1807wp3359.11.odt 2 any communication from the said office. In my view, since the challenge is to the Recovery Certificate dated 26/9/2002, the above petition suffers from delay and laches and would have to be dismissed on the said ground. The warrant of attachment is only consequential to the said Recovery Certificate. In so far as the Revision Application filed by the petitioner is concerned, if the same is pending, the authorities are directed to hear and dispose of the same by 31st October, 2011. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 18 Jul 2011. The bench was R M SAVANT.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments