Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. Jamadar, J.
Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Aishwarya Chetan Khedkar @ Aishwarya - Respondent
Writ Petition No.3272 of 2025, Interim Application No.8693 of 2025, Interim Application No.9086 of 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of sarfaesi enforcement and partition injunction dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. sarfaesi bars civil jurisdiction; suit collusive; properties self-acquired (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. post-injunction sale void; properties ancestral per records (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. civil court jurisdiction intact for non-borrower coparceners (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. appellate court corrects perverse discretionary denial of injunction (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. mutation entries confirm ancestral character of suit properties (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. borrower conduct does not defeat coparcener's prima facie rights (Para 48 , 49) |
| 8. secured creditor defiantly sold property post-injunction knowledge (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 9. property transfers violating injunction orders are illegal and void (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 10. writ dismissed; impugned injunction order upheld (Para 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT :
N.J.JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The Petitioner – Defendant No.5 questions the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 24 January 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Vadgaon – Maval, Dist. Pune, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.47 of 2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff against an order dated 14 December 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Vadgaon, thereby rejecting the application for temporary injunction in RCS No.305 of 2023, came to be allowed by setting aside the said order and restraining the Petitioner – Defendant No.5 and Defendant Nos.1 to 4 from creating third party interest in the property bearing Survey Nos.1/1/A/1, 1/1/A/6 and 1/1/A/7 with the building housing Hotel Aishwarya Regency (the suit property), without due process of law, to the extent of the share of the Plaintiff therein, till the final disposal of the suit.
3. The Petitioner is a public limited Company. The Petitioner had sanctioned financial facilities to Aishwarya Regency LLP, a limited liability Partnership. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the partners of the said firm. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also stood guarantors for the due repayment of the credit facilities extended by Defendant No.5. Security interest in the suit property was also created in favour of Defendant No.5.
4. In the wake of the default in the discharge of the liabilities, Defendant No.5 initiated measures under Section 13 of the the SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT , 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). Eventually, on 15 March 2023, Defendant No.5 took symbolic possession of the suit property. The District Magistrate, Pune passed an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for delivery of physical possession of the suit property. The challenges to the action initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 at the instance of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed. As there was resistance to the physical delivery of the possession of the suit property, Defendant No.5 was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petitions.
5. The Petitioner asserts, to obviate the sale of the secured property, the Plaintiff, who is the daughter of Defendant Nos.1 and 2, instituted RCS No.305 of 2023 purportedly for the partition and separate possession of her share in the suit property. An application preferred by the Plaintiff, seeking temporary injunction to restrain Defendant No.5 from selling the suit property to enforce its security, with a view to thwart recovery of the legal dues,came to be rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 14 December 2023.
6. The Plaintiff filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.47 of 2023 before the District Court at Vadgaon. By the impugned judgment and order dated 24 January 2025, the learned District Judge allowed the said appeal
Civil court jurisdiction not barred under SARFAESI for coparcener's (non-borrower) partition suit on ancestral property; appellate court may correct trial court's perverse injunction refusal; post-in....
Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over partition disputes despite the SARFAESI Act barring jurisdiction in matters concerning measures taken by secured creditors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a property transaction during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of the suit, and the Court may grant injunction....
The court established that suppression of material facts regarding a mortgage can bar a civil suit under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot suppress material facts to avoid a statutory bar and maintain a suit. The Court has the authority to consider circumstances....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to restrain a party from alienating properties during the pendency of a civil suit, based on the principles of prima facie ca....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
