1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN INSOLVENCY NOTICE OF MOTION NO.193 OF 2006 IN NOTICE NO.N/255 OF 2006 Re: Arun Kumari Ohri. ..Judg.Debtor. Ex-parte: Smt.Meera Khanna. ..Judg. Creditor. Mr.Tushar Goradia with Mr.Kishore Jain i/b. Gaurang Mehta for Judg. Debtor. Ms.Rekha C.Shukla for Judg. Debtor. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008. : OCTOBER 23, 2008. : OCTOBER 23, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The principal question that needs to be addressed in the present proceeding is: whether the order passed by the Competent Authority constituted under provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is covered by the sweep of Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. After the decision in Paramjeet Singh Patheja Vs.ICDS Ltd. Paramjeet Singh Patheja Vs.ICDS Ltd. Paramjeet Singh Patheja Vs.ICDS Ltd. reported reported reported in JT 2006(10) SC 41 in JT 2006(10) SC 41 in JT 2006(10) SC 41, there is hardly any doubt that the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act, 1909 would be available only if the decree or order is passed by a Court within the meaning of provisions 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other enactment. Insofar as provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act are concerned, no doubt sections 50 and 51 stipulates that all proceedings before the competent authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings and the competent authority shall be deemed to be civil court. However, this deeming provision is only for the purpose of section 193, 228 of the IPC and section 345 and 346 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. In the case of Prakash S. Jain V.s. Marie Prakash S. Jain V.s. Marie Prakash S. Jain V.s. Marie Fernandes Fernandes Fernandes reported in 2004 (2) BCR page 592(S.C.), reported in 2004 (2) BCR page 592(S.C.), reported in 2004 (2) BCR page 592(S.C.), the Apex Court on analysing the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Acts, 1999 has directly answered the point under consideration. After this Judgment, it is not open to still contend that provisions of Section 9 of the Insolvency Act would be available in respect of the Order passed by the Competent Authority under the Provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, even though the order requires the debtor to pay damages quantified in the said order. Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant proceeding in relation to such order which is not covered by section 9(2) of the Act. 3 4. Accordingly, notice of motion is made absolute. Insolvency notice taken out by the Petitioning creditor is rejected. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)