SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
KEVAL FULCHAND SHAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ORS – Respondent
SA 581/2004



Advocates:
['SHRI RAMESH A KARALE', 'GOVT PLEADER', '', 'SHRI K B ADYANTHAYA']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2004

Keval Fulchand Shah.

... Appellant.

Versus.

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

... Respondents.

Shri Ramesh A.Karale for the Appellant.

Shri K.K.Tated, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State.

Shri K.B.Adyanthaya for the Respondents Nos.2 & 3.

CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J.

DATED : 23nd February, 2005.

P.C.:

1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the

parties.

2.

The

Appeal

is

filed

by

the

original

Plaintiff.

The

Plaintiff

claims

to

be

the

owner

of

a

residential

flat.

On

the

basis

of

the

Award

passed

by

the

Cooperative

Court,

the

suit

flat

has

been

attached

by

the

Special

Recovery

Officer.

In

the

suit

filed

by

the

Appellant/Plaintiff in substance the challenge is to the

order of attachment.

3.

The

trial

Court

held

that

the

suit

was

not

maintainable

as

remedy

was

available

to

the

Appellant

to

prefer

a

claim

under

sub-rule

19(a)

of

Rule

107

of

the

Maharashtra

Cooperative

Societies

Rules,

1961.

The

trial

Court

rejected

the

plaint

and

the

Appeal

preferred

: 2 :

by the Appellant/Plaintiff has been dismissed by the

District Court.

4.

After

having

heard

the

learned

Advocates

appearing

for

the

parties,

I

find

that

there

is

no

error

in

the

view

taken

by

the

Courts

below.

If

the

Appellant

has

any

objection

to

the

attachment

he

can

avail

of

the

remedy

under

sub-rule

19(a)

of

Rule

107

of

the

said

Rules of 1961. The Courts below were right in holding

that the suit was not maintainable.

5. No substantial question of law arises. The Second

Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.

If

the

suit

flat

is

not

put

to

sale

till

today,

the

same

shall

not

be

done

for

a

period

of

six

weeks

from

today to enable the Appellant to adopt appropriate

remedy.

7. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of the

order.

Judge.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top