(NONE) v. Signed by: NEERAJ
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed off
Provisions considered
Judgment
SAWAN S/O RAJESH SEN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O 142, JAISHREE (MADHYA NAGAR B.S.F. KE PICHE INDORE PRADESH)
SMT. CHANDA W/O RAJESH SEN OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 142, JAYSHREE NAGAR B.S.F. KE PEECHHE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) PRIYANSHI INTERPRISES, 142, JAYSHREE NAGAR B.S.F. KE PEECHHE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) RAJESH S/O CHHAGANLAL OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O 142, JAYSHREE NAGAR B.S.F. KE PEECHHE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI DEEPRAJ SINGH - ADVOCATE) AND IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD. (INDIA INFOLINE HOUSING FINANCE LTD.) REGD. OFFICE 12-A 10, 13TH MANZIL PARINI CRASKEJO C 38 AND 39 G BLOCK BANDAR KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST MUMBAI AND BRANCH OFFICE 101-102 DARSHAN MALL 1522, RACECOURSE ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONERS (NONE) This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA passed the following: .....RESPONDENT Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 05-06-2023 18:01:55 2 ORDER Shri Deepraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. In the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the order dated
Operative part
06.05.2023 and 17.05.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Case No.1361/2023. Against the petitioners, an order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid order has been passed ex parte without service of any notice or opportunity of hearing. Upon perusal of the order dated 17.05.2023 it is manifest that the petitioners have appeared and represented through counsel but they did not file appropriate application for setting aside ex parte order and stay of the execution of the possession warrant. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order however the liberty is granted to the petitioners to file appropriate applications by tomorrow before the Court below and if such applications are filed, those applications will be decided by the Court below in accordance with law before further proceedings for execution of the warrant of possession. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed off. (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) V. JUDGE (SUBODH ABHYANKAR) V. JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 05-06-2023 18:01:55
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed off
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
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.