BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER
BOMBAY
MISC. APPLICATION 286 of 2015
IN
MISC.
APPLICATION 116 of 2005
(In
MPID CASE No 12 of 2005)
Punjab National Bank ,
Recovery
Department,
G
Block, Plot No C/9,
BKC,
Bandra East,
Mumbai
– 400051
... Applicant
V E R S U S
The State Of Maharashtra,
( at
the instance of EOW unit 7)
Near
VT,
Mumbai
4000001
... Respondent
And
Indur K Chhugani,
Age 68
C/o
M. A. Makhija,
8,
Ajwani Apartments,
16
,Shankershet Road,
Pune
– 411 042 ...
Intervener
Application praying NOT to
create any third party rights in property, from which we were evicted forcibly
on 06.12.2013… Till hearing of pending Applications at this Court and the Bombay
High Court.
May It Please Your Honour,
1. The Intervenorherein,
Indian Inhabitant and now a senior citizen (about 68 years of age), was formerly
Managing Director from 1992 to 2004 of a Public Limited company, Publishing
yellow pages directories in multiple cities of India under the brand name
SELPAGES. The company M/s. Sellaids Publications (India)was listed on the
Bombay Stock Exchange and he has never been involved in any litigation, civil
or criminal, till he was unjustly arrested at age of 58 on March 28, 2005 in an
erroneous case on the basis of a false allegation that the Intervenor herein
has removed the seal of property
attached by the order of Court and made illegal entry into the property lying
attached by the order of the court,under section 448, 454 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Intervenor spent 6 days in police custody and also his wife
and son were arrested, however, they had taken anticipatory bail and were not
held in police custody.
2. The
Hon’ble Judge of this court on 22.03.2005 passed order on 22.03.2005 for
Investigation Officer to register FIR against “Chhugani and family’ without
first hearing the Intervenor , in violation of "Audi alteram partem" principle,
which is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice
or equity or the principle of natural justice in every civilised
society.
3. Whereas
the fact of the case is that there was no order passed for sealing of the property
and the property was never sealed. An order was passed for attachment on 19/01/2005
under Section 8 of the M.P.I.D. Act for only pasting a notice on the property
and asking interested parties to appear in court on 14/2/2005 to file their
objections to attachment, if any. Attached herewith is the operative part order
of the M.P.I.D. court dtd 19.01.2005 and list A of properties as EXHIBIT A. Listed at Sr No 1 is
property flat 501, 502 Pinky Panorama and at Sr No 5 is Shere E Punjab Plot .
4.
Whereas, the Intervenor herein and his
family purchased the property flat 501, 502 Pinky Panorama from 2 Banks in 2005
through an auction process. The two banks are Punjab National Bank and Bharat
Overseas Bank who had obtained physical possession of the Flats 501, 502 Pinky
Panorama on 12.10.2004 from the CMM Court Esplanade under the SARFAESI Act, and both the banks
had formed a Joint Asset Sale Committee, as the 2 flats were joined into one
composite flat with a single entrance. This Joint Asset Sale Committee had
called for Tenders on 15.01.2005 receivable on 15.02.2005. The Banks displayed
the Flats to potential buyers on 12.02.2005. They accepted Tenders on
15.02.2005, opened Tenders on 18.02.2005, found Chhugani’s were the highest
bidder, collected full payment from us by 25.02.2005 amounting to Rs
50,91,100/- ( Rupees 50 lakhs Ninety One thousand One Hundred only ) and gave
physical possession on 27.02.2005. [Applicant will rely upon all details
provided in Criminal Writ Petition No 621 of 2016]. The amount paid to Banks in 2005 remains with the banks till today.
5.
Punjab National Bank and Bharat Overseas
Bank filed Objections to attachment on 25.02.2005 by filing M.A. No 116 of 2005
and M.A. No 146 of 2005 respectively. in their applications Banks have informed
court - “The Applicant after taking necessary steps under the SARFAESI Act took
physical possession of the property on 12.10.2004 and was pursuing further
steps for the sale of the property ” - which clearly indicates that the
Flat No. 501, 502 was not sealed on February 8, 2005 and Bank considered
attachment by M.P.I.D. court of minor significance and they were continuing
with the sale process which started on January 15, 2005. Punjab National Bank
filed M.A. No 116 of 2005 and Bharat Overseas Bank filed M.A No 146 of 2005 . Applicant will also rely
upon the orders of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Esplanade, under
the SARFAESI Act dtd. 30.7.2004 in
favour of Bharat Overseas Bank and order dated 30.08.2004 in favour of Punjab
National Bank, whereby both the banks received physical possession of flat 501
and 502, Pinky Panorama on 12.10.2004, through the Deputy Registrar of the
court.
6.
Since 2005, the Intervenor
has been struggling for justice. The whole issue started when the Intervenor
was 58 years in age and now he is about 68 years. Due to multiple erroneous orders
given by the this M.P.I.D court since 22/03/2005 and also the Hon’ble High Court
for reliefs from time to time since 12/12/2005, as the case was lying with this
MPID court, the Intervenor states that
the justice has been denied to him and the orders have prejudiced his basic
right to reside in his home with his family and today the Intervenor and his
family are homeless even after paying Rs 50,91,100/- way back in 2005 to the banks
and purchasing the same through a tender process still deprives them of their
rights on the said flat 501& 502 of Pinky Panorama.
7.
After this erroneus order
dtd 12/12/2005 was passed by the High court,
Intervenor on 13/12/2005 filed Misc Application No 394 of 2005 and 395
of 2005 at this M.PID Court demanding action against the Bank Officers and the I.O. for misleading the M.P.I.D
Court earlier in March/ April 2005, just as they misled the Hon’ble High Court
on 12.12.2005. [
these 2 applications are still to be heard at this MPID court ]. The
Hon’ble Judge of the MPID court on 13/12/2005 itself ordered the new Investigating Officer Shri
Ramesh Waghmare to ascertain, if the flat was opened by Bank Officers on
12.02.2005. The report was filed by new Investigating Officer on 20.12.2005, in
Para 13 of the report it is recorded that “Statement of Shri Mihir Datta Chief Manager
of Bharat Overseas Bank has been recorded on 17.12.2005 by API Waghmare, in
which he has stated that the prospective buyers were called on 12.2.2005 by
officers of both the banks and the flats were shown to them on the same day. He
has further said that he has got the information of securing the said flats
from PSI Inamdar in the last week of January 2005. He further stated there was
no seal to the flats when they were shown to the buyers”. Copy of
report dts 20/12/2005 of the New Investigation officer is attached as EXHIBIT – ‘B’ Para’s 1-12 were incorrect, was proved from
documents provided by EOW and Khar Police Station later in 2013. These
documents are attached in Criminal Writ Petition No 621 of 2016.
8.
Thereafter this very
M.P.I.D. court on 30/01/2006 discharged this Applicant “for removing the seal of property attached by the order of Court and
making illegal entry into the property lying attached by the order of the
Court”, also recording fact of adverse order passed on 12/12/2005 in
Criminal application No 7912 of 2005 ( para 17) against Applicant and also
observing in Para 22 “There is no
express directions found that the property should be sealed. The actual sealing
is done or not done is a matter under investigation”. Attached herewith is
copy of order dtd 30.01.2006 discharging Applicant as EXHIBIT C.
9.
On 13.02.2006 Applicant
filed objection to attachment, wherein
it is explained The flats 501 and 502 Pinky Panorama were mortgaged in 1998 by
guarantor Seema Investments Pvt Ltd., to Bharat Overseas Bank and Punjab National
Bank against huge loans given to Financial Establishment Soundcraft Industries
Ltd., hence, such transfer cannot be
said to be a malafide transfer. Though both i.e. Soundcraft (FE) and Seema
Investments Pvt. Ltd., has common directors, but both Seema Investments Pvt.
Ltd., and Soundcraft are the different
entity in the eye of law. They cannot be termed as one and the same entity in
law. So also, the alleged fraud of repayments of the depositors is of year 2001
to 2004, whereas, the flats were mortgaged to the 2 Banks in 1998. Attached herewith
is copy of Objections filed on 13.02.2006 as EXHIBIT D.
10. Now
the Applicant brings on record the order dtd 14.12.2015 passed by this M.P.I.D court with regards to
the same attachment order dtd 19.01.2005, in the same case. This combined order
dtd 14.12.2015 in M.A. No 63 of 2013, M.A. No 71 of 2015
M.A. No 151 of 2005, M.A. No 242 of 2005 and M.A. No 243 of 2014
is attached herewith as EXHIBIT E
11. This
Applicant most humbly brings to the notice of this Hon’ble court that Article
14 of the constitution states“The state
shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India”. It may kindly be observed from
order dtd 14.12.2015 in M.A. No 63 of 2013 In Special M.P.I.D case No 12 of
2005, the following facts:
12. Para
6- In pursuance to the order of the Designated Court
dated 19.01.05, the I.O. under panchanama dated 21.02.2005 attached the said
property by putting notice of attachment on the iron gates to the said
property.
13. In pursuance
to the same order of this Designated Court dated 19.01.05, the I.O. falsely claimed on 21.03.2005 to have
sealed flats 501, 502 Pinky panorama on 08.02.2005. No panchnama has been produced by IO before 22.03.2005 or till today.
14. Para 21 and 26 - On
the plain reading of the section 8 of the MPID Act, it is apparent that the
order of attachment is subject to adjudication of the rights of the parties
u/sec.7 of the MPID Act. So also, impugned order passed by this Designated
Court on 19.01.2005, reproduced above, clearly speaks that the said attachment
is subject to the objection and rights of the parties, if any, u/sec.7 of the
MPID Act. As such, the order of attachment of the property u/sec.4 or
u/sec.8 of the MPID Act are the interim attachment orders, subject to
adjudication of the rights of the parties in the property, to be decided by
adopting summary procedure u/sec.7(6) of the MPID Act. In para 26 of the order, it is referred to as ‘symbolic attachment’.
15. The
Hon’ble M.P.I.D court in respect of property released on 14.12.2015 cited Civil
Litigation pending , similary in respect of flats 501, 502 Pinky Panorama,.
civil disputes are pending between the Chhugani’s and the 2 Banks, at the
Bombay High Court, DRAT, DRT 1 and Recovery Officer DRT 1.
I.
RPWST/11956/2015 in Civil Writ Petition No
9348 of 2005 filed by RekhaChhugani at Bombay High Court Vs Bharat Overseas
Bank and Othrs is pending. [ for flat 501 Pinky Panorama ].
II.
At Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal [DRAT} Appeal No 220 of 2009 Vs Bharat Overseas Bank and Othrs filed
by RekhaChhugani is pending. [ for flat 501 Pinky Panorama ].
III.
Intervention Applicanation
No 803/2010 at DRAT is filed by Applicant IndurChhugani .[ for flat 502 Pinky
Panorama ].
IV.
Transfer Application No 18
of 2010 is pending at DRAT filed by IndurChhugani. [ for flat 502 Pinky
Panorama ].
16. From
Para 21 and Para 26 of order dtd 14.12.2015 cited above it is very clear, that the
order passed by this Designated Court on 19.01.2005, was not for sealing any property
and after I.O. misled the court, an erroneous order was passed by the M.P.I.D Court
on 22.03.2005 directing I.O. to lodge FIR against Chhugani“for removing the seal of
property attached by the order of Court and making illegal entry into the
property lying attached by the order of the Court” . Attached is copy
of Roznama of M.P.I.D Court dtd 22.03.2005 , 24.03.2005 and 29.03.2005 as EXHIBIT F. False complaint filed by IO
at Khar Police station on 24.03.2005, Order of the High Court dtd 15.02.2006 stayng
proceedings in C.R. No 103/2005 and letter of Khar Police station to CMM Court
informing about Charge sheet filed inadvertently by Khar Police Station on
03.05.2006 is Attached herewith as Exhibit G Colly.
17. Again
it is confirmed in para 26 of order that in the case of property ar Serial No 5
Sher E Punjab plot released to Shri Bharat Harwani in the same case it is
stated there was only symbolic attachment Bharat Harwani had filed
Application No 243 of 2014 - 9 years
after attachment- and it was promptly
decided in his favor - but Applications by Banks in 2005 and objections filed
by this Intervenor on 13.02.2006 for flats 501, 502 Pinky Panorama are NOT
heard till today and Applications filed by this Intervenor and wife Rekha Chhugani
were rejected though grounds for release are very identitical as cited, for releasing property of Bharat Harwani.
18. Whereas, the flats 501 and 502 Pinky Panorama
were mortgaged in 1998 by guarantor Seema Investments Pvt Ltd., to Bharat
Overseas Bank and Punjab National Bank against huge loans given to Soundcraft
Industries Ltd., and the banks executed the guarantees and sold the said flats
through tender process by collecting the money from the Intervenor herein. So
also, the alleged fraud of repayments of the depositors is of year 2001 to
2004, whereas, the flats were mortgaged to the 2 Banks in 1998.
19. It is a fact that Applicant
and his family were in possession of the said property. And were evicted
forcibly from the flats by order of the M.P.I.D. Courtstarted on 19.10.2013, when
there was no Application from ANYONE for our eviction and the order was passed
before deciding objections to attachment filed by Banks on 25.02.2005 and by
this Applicant on 13.02.2006. Even order of the Bombay High Court dtd
12.12.2011 in criminal Appeal No 1409 of 2011 to hear objections to attachment
expeditiously, was simply treated with contempt and ignored. Attached is order
of Bombay High Court ftd 12.12.2011 as EXHIBIT
“H”.
20. This court passed
order for eviction from flats on 19/10/2013 and Applicant and family was
evicted forcibly on 06/12/2013 and made homeless, though no court has found him
guilty of any offence.
21. Applicanthad obtained
documents from EOW office and Khar Police station, which clearly indicated that
the FIR lodged on 24/3/2005, was false against Intervenor. Intervenor filed
complaint with Additional Commissioner of Police W, Shri Vishwas Nangre Patil,
who ordered an inquiry in March 2013, against police officers of Khar Police
station, who had registered a false FIR against Intervenor, his wife and also
his son on 24/3/2005. This FIR was for breaking seal of property put on
8/2/2005 on account of order of attachment of the M.P.I.D. Court dtd 19/1/2005
– The Khar Police Officers on 24/03/2005
were fully aware, that there was no order passed on 19/01/2005 by the court to
seal the property. And that the complainant who also was a Police officer from
the Economic Offences Wing [EOW] had never come to Khar Police station, on 8/02/2005
with letter seeking help to seal the property 501,502, Pinky Panorama, as
claimed in his complaint.
22. The Inquiry, started in March 2013, about false FIR lodged
on 24/3/2005 against Intervenor and family, which should not have taken more
than 2 weeks to be completed, however it has been dragging on, for already for more
than 3 years .It is.transferred from one authority to another then to a third
and to a fourth. The Intervenor states that he is made to feel remediless in
law. The Intervenor is over 68 years of age and is fighting this battle for
justice since over 10 years now. With the apprehension of life ahead, it is
questionable that he has to run from pillar to post in the hope for justice.[ Applicant
will rely upon the contents of Criminal writ Petition No 621 of 2016 ].
23.
GROUNDS
A. Applicant was entitled to remain in possession of property
till the due process of law was followed as directed by this Hon’ble Court on
12.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal No 1409 of 2011. Applicant has been forcibly
evicted on 06.12.2013 and made homeless without due process of law. There was
no Application before this court from anyone for eviction of intervenor. Applicant
is not found quilty of any crime, there has been no trial till today, in fake
case of “breaking seal on property” filed by I.O. on 24.03.2005.
B.
The Order of this M.P.I.D
Court passed on 14.12.2015, releasing property to Bharat Harwani at Serial no 5
from the attachment order dtd 19.01.2005 makes it abundantly clear, that this
Applicant was arrested in 2005, because of the erroneus order passed by this
M.P.I.D Court on 22.03.2005. This fact was also brought out in para 22 of order
passed by the same court in favour of Applicant on 30.01.2006, attached as
Exhibit C.
C.
While M.A. No 243 of 2014
filed by Shri Bharat Harwani, 9 years after property at Serial No 5 was
attached, was heard promptly and property released on 14.12.2015 , identical objections
to attachment filed by Applicant on 13.02.2006 with respect to property at
Serial No 1 were not heard, before forcible evicting Applicant from
property on 06.12.2013.
D.
The fact that there is no
order to seal the property is also clear from reading the so called attachment
order dtd 19.01.2005. Order only directed “On the properties being ordered to
be attached, a notice be displayed by mentioning that properties have been
attached by the order of this court in exercise of powers under section 8 of
MPID Act, 1999 and if, any person having any objection to attachment and having
any claim, interest in the properties, he can approach to this court and file
his objection on 14.02.2005 and order of attachment shall be subject to
decision of such objections”.
E.
Applicant had to spend 6
days in police custody. Even his wife Rekha Chhugani and Son Sushil Chhugani
were arrested. The news was also reported in newspapers.
F.
The family has suffered
mental torture, have been humiliated and defamed in society on account of
erroneus order of the M.P.I.D Court on 22.03.2005, which was on account of
false assertion by I.O.on 21.03.2005, that he had sealed flats on order of the
court. The I.O.Shri Mehboob Inamdar is an habitual offender and Intervenor will
rely upon, information received under the RTI Act
G.
There was no order passed
on 19/1/2005 to seal the property, yet the Applicant was arrested for “for
removing the seal of property attached by the order of Court and making illegal
entry into the property lying attached by the order of the Court”.
H.
Inspite of facts brought
before the M.P.I.D court in M.A. No 116 of 2005 by Punjab National Bank and
M.A. No 146 of 2005 by Bharat Overseas Bank on 25.02.2005 and objections filed
by Applicant on 13.02.2006, which clearly proved that the flats 501, 502 Pinky
Panorama did not come under the M.P.I.D. Act., an erroneus order was passed on
19.10.2013, to evict Applicant forcibly from the flat. Applicant has been
homeless since 06.12.2013.
I.
Fact that Investigating
officer served notices to both the banks in their offices on 12/2/2005, to
appear before the M.P.I.D court, makes it very clear, that he had not even put
up any notice on the flats on 08/02/2005. The visitor’s register provided by
this Intervenor in M.A No 188 of 2005 also indicates, that the IO never visited
the Pinky Panorama Building on 08.02.2005.
J.
Contents / Prayers of
Applications filed by the 2 Banks on 25/2/2005, raising objections to the
attachment order, makes it abundantly clear, that the Investigating officer had
not sealed flats on 8/2/2005, as orally alleged on 21/03/2005.
K.
The Investigating Officer
had misled the Hon’ble judge on 21/03/2005 into believing that he had sealed
the property on 08/02/2005, when he had never visted the Pinky Panorama
Building on 8/2/2005.
L.
Bank officers have filed
Affidavits at the M.P.I.D Court and the Bombay High Court admitting that they
had opened flats on 11/2/2005 and 12/2/2005 to show the flats to potential
buyers and had found no seal alleged to have been put by the investigating
Officer on 8/2/2005. [ Applicant will rely upon Affidavits attached in Cr WP
621/2016 ].
M.
Letter copies dtd 8/2/2005
received under the RTI Act in May 2013 from the EOW with signatures of
imaginary officers of Khar Police Station as recipients, prove that I.O. has
created forged documents for his record at the EOW. Also in letters dtd 8/2/2005 are mentioned
Flats 701, 702 Pinky Panorama flats, further proves that the Investigating
officer is an habitual wrong doer. Apart from this case, past record of I.O.
Shri MehboobInamdar, as per information received under the RTI Act by the
Applicant is detailed below:
N. Record of Police
Sub. Inspector M.A. Inamdar : Accused
Javed Abdul Momin in Pydhonie Police
Station C.R. No.158/99 Under Section 379 of I.P.C. admitted his guilt of
stealing Motor cycle then also he has not arrested him and his associates. For
this negligence and irresponsible conduct he was punished by withholding his
forthcoming annual salary increment was withheld for the period of one year
vide O.O.No. 214/APC/SRD/Desk-3/02 dated 3.7.02.
O. Record at EOW of Police Sub Inspector Mehboob Abbas Inamdar
in 2005: While performing his duties at
Economic Office Wing, C.I.D., Mumbai, directed to effectively conduct the
Primary Inquiry in respect of Case No.
No. 82/05, 96/05, 97/05 and to finally
decide but failed to do so. When
asked by Sr.P.I. Economic Offence Branch, Cell-7 on 22.9.05 he refused to give
written explanation saying that the report is already given. Further submitted
statement that the primary inquiry is pending as non-applicant was not
found. Except that no efforts are made
for any investigation and for this default he was punished by withholding his
further increment for three years vide
O.O.No.DYC/Z-3/SE/1052/06 dated 13/4/06.
P. The Applicant being 68 years of age, was unjustly and
contrary to principle of justice, equity and good conscience evicted from flat
501,502 Pinky Panorama, Khar W for which he has paid in 2005 the full amount
agreed upon to the banks, which was all the savings left with him, after his
business collapsed. Applicant owing to the appehensions of life, only prays for
Justice, to secure his family with a roof of their own during his life time.
24. As the Inquiry
ordered in March 2013, which should have taken not more than 2 or 4 weeks to be
completed had not reached any conclusion even after more than 2 years,
Applicant appoached Shri Rakesh Maria, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai on
28/04/2005. [ Applicant will rely upon contents of Cr WP No 621 of 2016 ].
25. The Applicant herein states that he has exhausted all
possible remedies available to him in law, however, no proper action or justice
has manifested in the last 11 years, and only this order dtd 14.12.2015 in M.A.
No 243 of 2014 in favour of Shri Bharat Harwani has given Applicant hope that
Justice will now prevail.
26. Applicant will rely
upon contents of Criminal Writ Petition
No 621 of 2016, wherein many more details are provided and numerous other
documents attached.
27. Pending Applications
/ Writ Petitions of Intervenor at the Bombay High Court are as under :
A. APPA/812/2013 for recall of order dtd 27.09.2012 in
Criminal Appeal No 688 of 2006 passed by Justice A M Khawilkar and Justice A R
Joshi.
B. Criminal Writ Petition No 621 of 2016 is pending at the
Hon’ble High Court – for completion of Inquiry started against IO and Khar
Police Officers started in March 2013.
C. Criiminal Application No 191 of 2016 under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the
Constitution of India – For compensation of Rs 2 crores and return of flats 501
and 502 Pinky Panorama – from which Intervenor was forcibly evicted on 06.12.2013
Alternatively.
Considering Article 14, 20 and 21 of
the constitution and the fact, Applicant or his family member owns no other
property anywhere and all his savings are paid for this property, flat No 501,
502 Pinky Panorama, 6thRoad, Khar W, the Respondent No. 1 Government of
Maharashtra may kindly be directed to award a monetary compensation of
Rs.10,00,00,000/- ( Rupees Ten Crores only ) to the Applicant for physical and
mental trauma suffered by him and his family members pursuant to his wrongful
arrest on 28.03.2005, spending 6 days in police custody, arrest of his wife and
son in the said matter, handcuffing and other inhuman treatment, and being
rendered homeless since 06.12.2013, having lost valuable property flat No 501,
502 Pinky Panorama, 6thRoad, Khar W, since which date the flat remains unjustly
sealed by the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police.
28. Pending Applications
/ objections to attachment of Intervenor at this MPID court are as under, since
2005 :
A.
Misc Application No 394 of
2005 filed on action against Bank Officers for misleading this Hon’ble Court.
B.
Misc Application No 395 of
2005 filed on action against Bank Officers and Investgation Officer for
misleading this Hon’ble Court.
C.
Objections to attachment
filed on 13.02.2006, almost identical to the objections filed 9 years later by Applicant Bharat Harwani in M. A.
No 243 of 2014 and whose property was released promptly by this court on
14.12.2015.
D.
Misc Application No 57 of
2012 filed for action against Bank Officers and investigation officer for
misleading this Hon’ble Court, resulting in order passed on 15.10.2011 for
forcible eviction of Intervenor in 2 weeks. This order was quashed by the
Bombay High Court on 12.12.2011.
29. Applicant with
permission of this Hon’ble court will add or alter pleadings and Prayers, if
necessary.
30.
APPLICANT
PRAYS:
A. Applicant
prays that considering the facts detailed in Para 2 about violation of
principle of "Audi alteram
partem" and fact that Applications of Intervener ( refer
Para 28 above ) have not been heard for over 11 years and Intervener was
evicted forcibly from Flats 501, 502 Pinky Panorama without due process of law.
The flats be kindly restored to him
Alternatively
No third party rights
be created in Flats 501, 502 Pinky Panorama till the Applications/ Petitions
detailed in Paras 27 and 28, with regards to matters pending at Bombay High
court since 2013 and at this MPID court since 2005; until these pending
petitions will reach finality. Otherwise an irreparable damage will
take place for the intervener which he cannot recoup the same in his life time
as he is already a senior citizen.
B. Banks
be restricted from any action like auction of the said flats, as the banks have
retained the money collected from the intervener for giving him possession of
the said flat in the current presents.
C. Court
may appoint a judicial commissioner to enquire why the banks have made a U turn
after having sold the flat and collected the money from the intervener.
D. When
the banks are silent on the money collected from the intervener after a due
process of auction in 2005, strictures may be passed against the banks for
indulging in perjury with the courts by giving different statements at
different times.
E. The
Applicant prays the Hon’ble court be pleased to pass any other order that the
Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of Justice.
Solemnly affirmed
at Mumbai IndurKartarChhugani
Dt this 25th July 2016 Applicant
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I
Shri Indur Kartar Chhugani aged about 68 Years Occupation Retired, permanent
resident of Flat No 501, 502, Pinky Panorama Co-operative Society Ltd., 6th
Road, Khar W, Mumbai 400 052, presently residing at C/o Manohar Makhija at 8,
Ajwani Apartments, 16, Shankershet Road, Pune – 411 042, do solemnly declare that what is stated in
paragraphs 1 to ..... is true to my own knowledge and information gathered from
the records of the Courts / Tribunal, under the RTI Act and what is stated in
above Petition is true and correct to my knowledge and belief and I believe the
same to be true.
Solemnly affirmed
at Mumbai Indur
KartarChhugani
Dt this 25th July 2016 Applicant
EXHIBITS - A to H
No comments:
Post a Comment