1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 1995 WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 1995 WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 1995 Deepak Kanwar Anand & Ors. .. Petitioners. vs. Haryana Finance Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents. Ms. N.G. Menon i/by Kachwaha & Partners for Petitioners. Mr. M.P. Rege for Respondent no.1. Mr. Milind More, AGP., for Respondent No. 2. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 7TH JULY, 2008. DATE: 7TH JULY, 2008. DATE: 7TH JULY, 2008. P.C. . The deceased is survived by the petitioner no. 1 and during the pendency of the petition the petitioner no. 1 has expired and the remaining petitioners are the only legal representatives left behind by Mrs. Kamala Anand and Shri Kanwar Sohamlaull Anand. 2 2. Heard. 3. A short question which arises for our consideration is whether the impugned recovery certificate issued in favour of the respondent dated 5.1.1995 is valid or not?. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of flat bearing no. 18 situated on the 3rd floor, Nirmala Mahal, Bomanji Petit Road, Mumbai - 400 036 which was originally owned by one Mrs. Kamala Anand wife of Kanwar Sohamlaull Anand and mother of petitioner nos. 1 to 4. The said flat at the relevant time was given on lease to M/s. Khatau Junkar Limited. 4. According to the petitioners, Mrs. Kamala Anand died on 3.2.1986. In spite of Smt. Kamala Anand having expired, the Respondent No. 1 got the impugned certificate issued in her name for recovering their dues which was payable by the company Dinkar Electronics Component Pvt. Ltd., of which she was the share holder. It is the case of the petitioners that as the property stood in the name of Smt. Kamala Anand and as she was no more alive the recovery certificate cannot be executed against the legal heirs i.e. the petitioners. 5. In the additional affidavit in reply it has been tried to be canvassed that whatever dues of the respondent no. 1 was payable has been discharged as 3 respondent no. 1 has attached various properties of M/s. Dinkar Electronics Component Private Limited which were standing in the name of the petitioners and, therefore, the recovery certificate issued against the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Kamala Anand, cannot be executed. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 1 at the relevant time was required to recover a sum of Rs. 32,56,790/- along with notice fee from and on behalf of Dinkar Electronics Component Private Limited through its directors and share holders of which undisputedly Smt. Kamala Anand was one of the major share holder. What we find from the pleadings is that this company M/s. Dinkar Electronics Component Pvt. Ltd., was a closely held by the family of petitioner no. 1. Therefore, we find that challenge to the recovery certificate is limited to the extent that as the certificate does not mention the name of the legal heirs, it cannot be executed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 submits that the respondent would apply to the Competent Authority for issuance of fresh recovery certificate in the name of the petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Kamala Anand. If that be so, there is no legal impediment in their way to proceed with the attachment and sale of the property under such a recovery certificate. We, 4 therefore, dispose of this petition by permitting the respondent no. 1 to seek rectification of the recovery certificate or obtain a fresh recovery certificate in the name of the petitioners by substituting the name of the deceased Kamala Anand in respect of the subject matter which is already duly described in the recovery certificate. As the Respondent No. 1 has been permitted to get the recovery certificate rectified or obtain a fresh recovery certificate in the name of the petitioners, the petitioners in the meantime shall not create any encumbrance or third party interest in the property in question other than what was the state of affair on the date of the filing of the petition for a period of three months. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on being instructed by the petitioners states that the petitioners would maintain status quo as on the date of filing of the petition and submits that they will abide by the orders of this Court and, therefore, this Court may direct that the Respondent No. 1 would give due notice to the petitioners as and when they will apply to the Competent Authority for rectification of the recovery certificate / issuance of fresh recovery certificate in the matter. The statement is accepted. In view of this, nothing survives in the petition. The same stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 5 [ (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.)