Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 15]

Supreme Court of India

Sanjivkumar Surajprakash Aggarwal vs State Bank Of India And Ors on 30 June, 2016

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2016 SC 494

Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Kurian Joseph

                                                                          NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               I.A. 2 OF 2016
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5401 OF 2016
                 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19616 OF 2015]

      SANJIVKUMAR SURAJPRAKASH AGGARWAL             Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

      STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.                  Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The dispute in this appeal is whether the tenancy created in favour of the appellant is a sham one or not. It is not in dispute that there is no adjudication on this aspect. Under Section 14 of the SARAFAESI Act, this aspect can be adjudicated before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Mumbai.

3. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank, submits that the Magistrate, in fact, had gone into the aspect while deciding the Invervention Application.

4. We do not think that the same would be sufficient in adjudicating the issue regarding tenancy. In our opinion, an inquiry, with the participation of the appellant, would be in the fitness and fairness of the adjudication. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of, directing the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry with regard to the genuineness of the tenancy created by the third respondent with the appellant. The parties shall appear before the Magistrate on 01.08.2016 and the Magistrate will conduct the required inquiry and complete the proceedings within one month thereafter.

5. Needless to say, the parties shall extend their cooperation, without praying for unnecessary adjournments, so that the matter can be decided within the stipulated time.

6. We make it clear that the pendency of the inquiry before the Magistrate shall not stand in the way of the Bank proceeding against the landlord in accordance with law.

7. I. A. No. 2 for directions is disposed of.

No costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;

JUNE 30, 2016.