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 0]

Bombay High Court

Shri Prakash S/O Narayandas Rathi vs Authorised Officer, Sicom Ltd., Mumbai ... on 4 March, 2026

Author: Anil Laxman Pansare

Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare

Order                                                                                                   wp 509.2016.odt

                                                              1


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 509 OF 2016
      [Shri Prakash s/o Narayandas Rathi vs. Authorised Officer, SICOM Ltd., Andheri(E),
                                                     Mumbai and ors.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda                               Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Mr. Y. S. Kullarwar, Advocate instructed by Mr. M. Anilkumar,
                                             Advocate for the petitioner
                                             Mr. A. V. Khare, Advocate for respondent no. 1 along with
                                             Ms. A. S. Athalye, Advocate h/f Mr. N. A. Lapalikar, Advocate
                                             Mr. S. V. Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 2

                                            CORAM :           ANIL L. PANSARE AND
                                                              NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

DATE : 04-03-2026.

The petitioner is before the Court against two consistent views, one is, by DRT, Nagpur and another by, DRAT, Mumbai. Both the Tribunals were of the view that the petitioner failed to justify delay in approaching DRT against the notice of possession dated 9-9-2011 and 30-9-2011 issued by respondent no. 1.

As such, the petition is filed in the year 2016, the petitioner appears to have not insisted for interim relief nor did he make attempt to get the petition decided expeditiously. The end result is that respondent no. 1 processed with the auction proceedings of the property under question. Respondent no. 2 is auction purchaser. He has paid the purchase price.

Order wp 509.2016.odt 2 Thus, the delay caused in pursuing the cause has virtually rendered the prayer infructuous. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time on the count that the arguing counsel is out of town. Thus, the delay in pursuing cause is continued. However, time granted in the interest of justice but as a last chance.

Stand over to 30-3-2026.

                                                          (JUDGE)                       (JUDGE.)

                                      wasnik




Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik

Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/03/2026 11:19:13