1 1 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 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7912 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7912 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7912 OF 2005 IN IN IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2414 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2414 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2414 OF 2005 Indur Kartar Chhugani : Applicant v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Naveen Chomal for the applicant. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the State. Mr.Pankaj Vijayan for Respondent No.5. Mrs.Srivastava for Respondent No.10. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE & CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE & CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE & V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED : 12th December 2005. DATED : 12th December 2005. DATED : 12th December 2005. ORAL ORDER ORAL ORDER ORAL ORDER 1. Heard advocate Mr.Chomal for the applicant/petitioner. This is an application for protecting possession of the petitioner in 2 2 2 respect of Flat Nos.501 and 502. These two flats were attached by the M.P.I.D. Court on 19th January 2005. It was subsequently found that the petitioner has broken the seal and entered into these two flats. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to him. He appeared before the M.P.I.D. Court and applied for cancellation or recalling of that show cause notice. While that application was pending he has filed this writ petition. 2. We repeatedly asked advocate Mr.Chomal whether he wants to proceed with the application before the M.P.I.D. Court where he has already appeared and applied for appropriate reliefs. He insisted that he should be heard in this application and his possession should be protected. Therefore, we are passing this order after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to withdraw this petition and press his reliefs before the M.P.I.D. Court. 3. Question is, whether the possession of petitioner in respect of flat Nos.501 and 502 is legal ? Admittedly, the property i.e. these two flats were attached by the M.P.I.D. Court on 3 3 3 19th January 2005 and pursuant to that attachment the property was sealed. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent Nos.5 and 10 invited bids for selling these two flats. He took part and offered his bid, and it is his further case that his bid was accepted by both these respondents. He made payment to them and then he was placed in possession by these two respondents. These facts are denied by the advocates for both these respondents. Our attention was invited by Mr.Chomal, appearing for the petitioner, to Exhibit "C", which is a letter written by the petitioner to the Punjab National Bank and the Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. It is at page 62. Then another letter Exhibit "E" written to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank. It is at page 67. The third letter is at Exhibit "G", Page 69, written to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank. In these three letters the petitioner has written that he has given his bid for purchase of these flats. He himself wrote that his bid was accepted. He has deposited the amount which may be collected and kept in ‘No lien account’ on behalf of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd and the same may be appropriated towards the payment of the said flat on confirmation from 4 4 4 them. One more letter at Exhibit "I", Page 72, was also shown by advocate Mr.Chomal to us. It is also written by the petitioner wherein he has given thanks to the Punjab National Bank for the keys for flat No.502 and there is a request to speed up the sale deed. 4. All these four letters bear the seal of the Punjab National Bank about acknowledging these respective letters. From these acknowledgements by the bank of the letters Mr.Chomal wants us to believe that the transaction of sale and purchase was complete; his bid was accepted; he paid the amount and he was placed in possession. His entire case, which is tried to be put forth before us, is false and bogus. Even at this stage, we must clearly say that not a single letter is there in possession of the petitioner showing that his bid was accepted by any of the respondents referred to above; that they intended to sell the property to him; that they had accepted the Demand Draft towards purchase money and, there are no other writing or letter from any of these two banks placing or handing over the possession of these two flats to the petitioner. All these four 5 5 5 documents are self created evidence. They are all one sided. They depict what the petitioner did. But no transaction is complete without the concurrence and consent of other side. The petitioner has miserably failed to show any thing in this regard. Even the drafts for payment given by him to the bank have not been encashed by the bank. This case & claim is, therefore, false and bogus. It is prima facie clear that the seal of the flats was broken by this petitioner and he forced his entry in the same. No protection can be given to him. Therefore, his application is rejected. We are constrained to make these observations because advocate Mr.Chomal for the petitioner insisted to pass an order on merits and it was he who has invited these findings. Therefore, these findings will have their own effect. Prayer for stay is rejected, because there is nothing to be stayed as there is no interim or ad interim order. [D.G.DESHPANDE,J] [D.G.DESHPANDE,J] [D.G.DESHPANDE,J] [V.M.KANADE,J] [V.M.KANADE,J] [V.M.KANADE,J]