1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1056/2008 (Arvindkumar Shamji Shah & ors. Vs. M/s Impact Abreast Pvt. Ltd. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.A. Jachak, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Joshi, Adv. for R- 2 & 3. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 18 th OCTOBER, 2008. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the District Judge-II, Nagpur, on 22nd November, 2007, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for a declaration that the transactions entered into by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the properties at Annexure-A to C to the application, are illegal. By the said application, a declaration was sought for annulling and cancelling the documents at Annexure-A to C to the application. The proceedings were initiated before the District Judge-II, Nagpur, by the Maharashtra State Finance Corporation under the provisions of Section 31(I)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The application was moved by the Corporation against the petitioners and some of the 2 respondents, for recovery of loan amount along with future interest. During the pendency of the proceedings, on an application filed by the Corporation, certain properties of the respondent no.1- Company and the Directors were attached. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners as well as the respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors of the respondent no.1-Company and the respondent nos. 2 to 4 are trying to dispose of certain properties with an intention to obstruct and delay the execution against them and to defraud the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 had created third party interest in three properties described in the application as Plot No. 96-C, residential house bearing no. 5/6 and residential plot Kh. No. 54/1, in spite of the fact that the three properties had already been attached by the Court, under the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. On hearing the parties and considering the documents, the District Judge-II, Nagpur, by the impugned order dated 22/11/2007, rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The Court observed that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the documents allegedly executed by some of the Directors of the respondent no.1-Company. 3 The Court observed that two of the documents appeared to be lease deeds, one executed by the Government of Chhattisgarh in favour of the Industries Centre, Durg and M/s Om Wires and others executed by the Special Regional Development Authority, and Sandeepkumar Jain. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, that the application annexed by the petitioners to the present petition as Annexure-A does not include the property bearing Kh. No. 54/1, which is a plot and this shows that Plot No. 54/1 was not attached. It is now canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that there is a typographical error in the application at Annexure-A and Plot No. 54/1 was also attached and was a property mentioned in para 2 of the application for attachment of the properties. After considering the documents and the merits of the application, the District Judge-II, Nagpur, rightly held that the application was not tenable before the District Judge-II, Nagpur and the petitioners should have filed some other appropriate proceedings. The Court observed that the proceedings were not in the nature of the execution proceedings and since the application was not filed by the Corporation, the same was liable to be rejected. According to the District Judge-II, Nagpur, the Court could not have 4 issued the directions to the Corporation as mentioned in prayer clauses (e), (f) and (g) of the application. The impugned order dated 2/11/2007 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. No ground has been made out for interfering with the order dated 2/11/2007 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP