Gujarat High Court High Court

Ghanshyambhai vs Bank on 10 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Ghanshyambhai vs Bank on 10 March, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/14746/2004	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14746 of 2004
 

 
 
=================================================


 

GHANSHYAMBHAI
KANCHANLAL DARJI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

BANK
OF BARODA KALOL (MAIN) BRANCH & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
NILESH A PANDYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
DR MAHESH THAKAR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/03/2010  
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

The
respondent bank took action for auction sale of the property in
question. The petitioner, who claims to be the tenant, moved this
Court without moving before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. By interim
order dated 3.12.2004, the petitioner was allowed to take possession
of the property back on condition of filing a specific undertaking
that he will vacate the premises in question within a period of 72
hours from the finalization of the auction sale. It appears that
thereafter more than 5?

years have passed, but neither the bank has taken steps under the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act,. 2002 nor the petitioner vacated the
premises. It may be because of the tenant already in the premises
that the bank is not in a position to auction sale of the property.
In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any
relief to the petitioner and the petitioner will vacate the premises
in question immediately. The interim order passed on 3.12.2004 is
vacated.

The
petition is dismissed. However, this order shall not stand in the
way of the petitioner to move before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for
appropriate relief.

[S.J.

MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]

[AKIL
KURESHI, J.]

sundar/-

   

Top