Jitendrasinh Rameshbhai Vaghela vs Bank Of India & 2 on 4 November, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Jitendrasinh Rameshbhai Vaghela vs Bank Of India & 2 on 4 November, 2015

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

              C/SCA/18610/2015                                                 ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18610 of 2015

         ==========================================================
                  JITENDRASINH RAMESHBHAI VAGHELA....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
                         BANK OF INDIA & 2....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
         ==========================================================

                 CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
                        KUMARI

                                  Date : 04/11/2015


                                   ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr.S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner is neither a borrower, nor a guarantor and nor a defaulter of respondent No.1Bank. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of a tenement in a Scheme developed by respondent No.3. Without informing the petitioner, the land on which the tenement has been constructed has been mortgaged by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1 Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Thu Nov 05 03:00:25 IST 2015 C/SCA/18610/2015 ORDER Bank. The petitioner has purchased the tenement by way of a registered Sale Deed. It is not mentioned in the Sale Deed that there is any encumbrance over the property. It is further submitted that the parents of the petitioner are residing in the said tenement. If the tenement of the petitioner is sold, it would amount to a violation of the right to property of the petitioner, as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. That, even a defaulting borrower is entitled to a notice, whereas the petitioner would be deprived of his property without even the issuance of a notice.

Issue Notice and Notice as to interim relief, returnable on 10.12.2015.

Adinterim relief in terms of Paragraph22(B)

(i)and (ii) is granted, till then.

In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service, today, is also permitted.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Thu Nov 05 03:00:25 IST 2015

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court