Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13823/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13823 of 2009
=========================================================
SHAMBHUKUMAR
KANCHANLAL DARJI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ARPITKUMAR
PRAFULBHAI PANCHAL & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MA KHARADI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
MR UM SHASTRI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 27/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Mr.Shastri,
learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Bank confirms that in
exercise of the power under Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short),
the possession was taken over on 25.11.2009 by applying seal and he
states that thereafter the landlord respondent No.1 herein made
application to the respondent No.2 Bank on 26.12.2009, whereby he
paid the amount and demanded the possession and the Bank, since the
payment was already made, has handed over the possession to the
landlord respondent No.1 herein. The
papers submitted by Mr.Shastri are taken on record.
The
aforesaid prima facie shows that under the guise of the powers under
the Act, the petitioner tenant has been dispossessed by the Bank
and the landlord has taken over the possession, which, prima facie,
can be said as misuse of the process of law and it may also call for
further orders against the parties to the proceedings. However, as
respondent No.1 is not represented by anyone and Mr.Shastri for
respondent No.2 wants further time to file reply, S. O. to 4th
February, 2010, with the
direction that respondent No.1 as well as the Manager of respondent
No.2 Bank shall remain personally present before this Court with the
records, if any, and they shall show cause as to why the order
should not be passed for entrustment of the possession to the tenant
petitioner herein, so as to restore the possession as prevailed
prior to the exercise of the power under the Act qua actual
occupation of the property is concerned and further order for
alleged misuse of the process of law. Respondent No.3 District
Superintendent of Police shall ensure that the communication of this
Court’s order is effected upon respondents No.1 and 2.
27.1.2010
(Jayant Patel, J.)
vinod
Top