1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2015
  6. /
  7. January

Hansaben Dinesh Dattani & 2 vs Authorised Officer

High Court Of Gujarat|08 April, 2015
1. Heard Mr. V. K. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. A. S. Asthavadi, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. It is predominantly contended by learned advocate for the petitioners that notice impugned at Annexure-A to this petition is illegal and contrary to law as it is addressed to a dead person.
3. The facts of the case reveals that Shrimati Harkunwarben @ Nirmalaben D. Thakkar was guarantor who happens to be the owner of the property being Shop at Ward No.2, City Survey No.1520 admeasuring about 17.91 sq. mtrs. with construction of ground floor, first floor and second floor, total construction admeasuring about 53.73 sq. mtrs. situated Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/5375/2015 ORDER in Shakti Main Bazar, Dhrangadhra.
4. The record indicates that notice came to be issued on 05/02/2013. Death certificate at page-21 of the paper book shows that Shrimati Harkunwarben @ Nirmalaben has expired at Dhrangadhra on 12/04/2013.
5. It may be noted that though the petitioners are well aware about the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent corporation and in fact the petitioners had also filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9704 of 2013 which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench (Coram:Akil Kureshi & J. B. Pardiwala, J.J.) vide judgment and order dated 22-29/09/2014. It is a matter of record that thereafter the petitioner approached the Apex Court by way of SLP which was numbered as Civil Appeal 1238 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.12445 of 2014. The said Civil Appeal has also been disposed of vide judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2015 (1) SCALE 709.
6. However, in view of the fact that original borrower/guarantor Shrimati Harkunwarben has expired, notice is given to a dead person.
7. In light of the aforesaid facts, Mr. A. S. Asthavadi, learned advocate for the respondent, on instructions, states that the impugned notice, for sale at Annexure-A to this petition published in Gujarati daily newspapers i.e. 'Gujarat' and 'Divyabhaskar' in its edition dated 10/03/2015 in Rajkot as Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/5375/2015 ORDER well as Ahmedabad, dated 24/02/2015 shall stand withdrawn, with a liberty to give fresh notice as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
8. In light of the aforesaid, no further order is required to be passed in this matter. Even while parting, this Court finds it appropriate to state that it was the duty of the petitioners to disclose the fact when earlier writ petition was filed and even the petitioners had approached the Apex Court.
9. The respondent corporation is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as expeditiously as possible.
10. With this observation, present petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) ila Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.