M/s. Otoklin Global Business, A Partnership Firm and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Additional Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay and Others

Decided On : Jul-28-2016

Court : Mumbai

LAW: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Indian Partnership Act, the Indian Companies Act, the Indian Partnership Act, Section 13(4, Section 13(4, the Sarfaesi Act, Section 14, Section 14, the Sarfaesi Act, Section 17, the Sarfaesi Act, Section 17, the Sarfaesi Act, Section 14, Section 14, the Sarfaesi Act, the Demand Notice, Section 13(2, the Sarfaesi Act, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 17, the Consent Decree, Section 14(1

PERSON: S.C. Dharmadhikari, Certiorari, Metropolitan Magistrate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri, Entities, Respondent Nos.4, Jhaveri, Shirish Jhaveri, Respondent Nos.4, Shirish Jhaveri, Respondent Nos.4, Petitioner No.1-Firm, Petitioners, Petitioners, Petitioners, Metropolitan Magistrate, Petitioners, Metropolitan Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate, Petitioners, Purohit, Petitioners, Assignee, Purohit, Purohit, Purohit, Purohit, Purohit, Purohit, Vishal N. Kalsaria, N.G. Thakkar, Thakkar, Petitioners, Purohit, Thakkar, Petitioner No.2-Dhaval, Dilip Jhaveri, Dilip Jhaveri, Dilip Jhaveri, Thakkar, Thakkar, Thakkar, Thakkar, Thakkar, Petitioner No.1, Thakkar, Thakkar, Thakkar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Thakkar, Thakkar, Vishal N. Kalsaria, Thakkar, Thakkar, Thakkar, Thakkar, Otoklin Exports, Petitioners, Thakkar, Purohit, Dilip Jhaveri, Purohit, Petitioner No.1, Thakkar, Thakkar, Purohit, Petitioner No.1, Purohit, Dilip Kundalal Jhaveri, Petitioner No.1, Defendant Nos.3, Thakkar, Tenancy, Shah Industrial Area, Veera Desai Road, Andheri, Shah Industrial Area, Veera Desai Road, Andheri, Shah Industrial Area, Veera Desai Road, Andheri, Shah Industrial Area, Veera Desai Road, Andheri, Dilip Kundanlal Jhaveri, Dilip, Petitioners, Thakkar, Sarfaesi Act, Thakkar, Purohit, Petitioners, Thakkar, Purohit, Atul Daulatrai Desai v. State, Petitioners, Purohit

CARDINAL: 2, three, 3., 4., 5, about 627, 6, 7, 5, 2, One, 5, 5, 8, 9, 627, 10, less than 200, 4187, 14, 18, 19, 19, 11, 12, two, three, 13, 14, 15, 16, two, 6, one, 6, one, approximately 4367, 180, 4187, 17, 69 to 71, 18, 6, 1, 3, No.3, 6, 19, 20, 21, 22, four, 1, one, 2, 5, 23, 31.7.2014, 24, 1, 4367, 053, 2, 3., 4., 5., 6, 8, 9, 25, 1, 5, 2., 26, 14, 179, 30.11.2014, 2, 4, 27., 28, 29, 30, 31, 4, 5, two, 10, 32, 33, 35, 36

ORG: Petitioners, Case No.67/SA/2012, Firm, Ground Floor, Shah Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400053, Petitioners, MIDC, Petitioners, the Ground Floor, Shah Industrial Estate, Petitioners, Court, Court, Respondent Nos.4, Bank of Baroda, Petitioners, the Directors of Respondent No.3, Petitioners, Petitioner No.1-Firm, Petitioners, Petitioners, Petitioners, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Petitioners, Suit, R.A.D. Suit No.692/2011 of, the Court of Small Causes, Suit, Petitioners, Petitioners, Court, the Bank of Baroda, The Bank of Baroda, Original Application No.1025, Bank, Title Deeds, the Original Application, a Recovery Certificate, the Recovery Certificate, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Petitioners, 5th September 2005, Original Application No.1025 of, Petitioners, the Bank of Baroda, the Recovery Certificate, Bank of Baroda, Bank of Baroda, Debt Recovery Tribunal, The Tribunal Receiver, the Recovery Certificate, Executing Proceedings, Petitioners, Tribunal, Petitioners, Plot No.1, Shah Industrial Estate, the Tribunal Receiver, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, Petitioners, Advocate, Securitisation Application No.322, this Securitisation Application, Petitioners, the Respondent-Company, Petitioners, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Securitisation Application (No.67/SA/2012, Petitioners, Securitisation Application No.322, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, the Supreme Court, International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., Ors, Criminal Appeal No.736, Petitioners, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate, Petitioners, Securitisation Application No.322, Securitisation Application, Tribunal, Petitioners, Securitisation Application, Petitioners, this Securitisation Application, Petitioners, Court, Petitioners, Court, Court, Petitioners, Court, Respondents, the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Judgment of the Supreme Court, Petitioners, the Intervention Application, the Securitisation Application No.67/SA/2012, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Petitioners, Petitioners, Petitioners, Bank, the Bank/Original Decree-holder, the Bank of Baroda, Petitioners, Court, Bank, the Bank of Baroda and Respondent No.2, Petitioners, Bank, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., Ors, Criminal Appeal No.736, Bank of India and Ors, AIR 2016 SC 530, Petitioners, Petitioners, the Original Application No.1025 of 2001, Court, Petitioners, Suit, Suit, Bank, Court, Petitioners, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Ors, Petitioners, Bank, Petitioners, Court, the Bank of Baroda, Equipments Limited, the Memorandum of Entry, the Memorandum of Entry, the Recovery Certificate, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Bank of Baroda, Tribunal Receiver, the Securitisation Application No.67, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Special Leave Petition, Court, Petitioners, the Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bank of India, Petitioner No.1-Firm, Petitioners, Petitioners, Court, the Registered Office of Respondent No.3, Otoklin Filters, Sections 48, Petitioners, Petitioner No.2-Dhaval, Petitioners, Court, Petitioners, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Petitioners, Industrial Estate Limited, Petitioners, the Common Electric Junction Box, Petitioners, Petitioners, Suit, the Court of Small Causes, R.A.D. Suit, Suit, Plaintiff, Suit, the Sales Tax Officer, Sales Tax Notice,, Profession Tax Certificate, the Certificate of Registration, the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, the Certificate of Importer-Exporter Code, Ministry of Commerce, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Suit, Otoklin Plants, Equipments Limited, Bank of Baroda, Suit, Equipments Ltd., the International Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited, the Asset Reconstruction Company, The Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Bank, the International Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited, Suit, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Suit, the Court of Small Causes, Petitioners, Petitioners, RAD Suit No.692/2011 of, Small Causes Court, Suit, Small Causes Court, Petitioners, Petitioners, the Competent Court, The Consent Terms, Plot No.1, Defendants, Plot No.1, the "Suit Premises, The Plaintiffs and Defendants, BMC Tax, Defendants, Plot No.1, Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, BMC Tax, this Hon'ble Court, Plot No.1, the "Suit Premises, Suit, The Consent Terms, Consent Terms, The Consent Terms, Consent Terms, Special Power, the Suit on 30/07/2015, Decree, The Additional Affidavit, Petitioners, Petitioners, Court, Court, the Highest Court, State, Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Bank of Baroda, Bank of Baroda, the Bank of Baroda, the Recovery Certificate, the Securitization Application, this Securitisation Application, Petitioners, Company, Court, the Court of Small Causes, Court, Court, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Petitioners, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Vishal Kalsaria, the Supreme Court of India, Vishal Kalsaria, Appellant Vishal Kalsaria, the Court of Small Causes, Vishal Kalsaria, The Court of Small Causes, Court, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Vishal Kalsaria, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Rent Control Legislation, Vishal Kalsaria, Petitioners, the Judgment in Vishal Kalsaria, Court, Petitioners, Respondents, Petitioners

GPE: Bombay, Taloja, the State of Gujarat, Mumbai, Mumbai, Respondent Nos.3, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, India, Sondagar, Mumbai, India, Mumbai, Harshad Govardhan, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, India, Respondent Nos.4, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Nos.2, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Vishal Kalsaria, Mumbai, Mumbai

ORDINAL: 6th, first, third, second, first, third, third, third, second, first, third, 15th, third, second, 5th, second, second, second, second, first, second, 5th, second, 9th, 5th, 6th, second, 3rd, second, second, second, 31st, second, second

DATE: November 2015, 19th December 2015, 29th December 2015, 1932, 3740, 1998, 1956, this third, 1997, 31st May 2002, 1998, 1994, 1997, 1932, monthly, 1,000/- per month, monthly, 1999, 2014, 31st July 2014, 2001, October 2001, 4, 5, 2001, 31st May 2002, 21st January 2008, September 2005, 16th March 2011, 10th May 2012, 22nd August 2011, 2002, 2011, 23rd January 2013, February 2013, 2011, 2014, 2011, 9th June 2014, 2011, four weeks, 8th July, 2014, June 2014, 23rd January 2013, February 2013, four months, November 2015, 19th December 2015, 29th December 2015, 2001, 2005, 10th May 2012, 2014, 1992, 1998, 2014, 4367, August 1992, 23rd December 1994, 2001, 2005, 28th January 2008, 9th June 2009, 60 days, 27th August 2006, 9th July 2014, 2016, the year 1997, 31st May 2002, 31st May 2002, 1882, 18th April 2016, 18th April 2016, 3, 4, 5, 1st October 2000, November 2014, 1998, 5, 1st February 2010, 2011, 1998, 1998, 4, 1999, 4th October 2011, 2014, 1998, 3740, 4367, monthly, 1000/-, 1998, 3740, 4367, 1998, 15 days, monthly, 3740, monthly, the Petitioner No.2, 31st July, 2015, 1998, 2011, 22nd August 2011, monthly, 2016, 7th July 2016, monthly, monthly, 34, a period of, eight weeks, 37

TIME: the minutes

FAC: Harshad Govardhan Sondagar, Harshad Govardhan Sondagar, the Writ Petition

LOC: the Assignee of the Debt of the Bank, Assignee, West, West, West, West

EVENT: 5th September 2005, 5th September 2005

PRODUCT: Respondent No.2, Debt, Respondent No.2-Assignee, Respondent, 3 SCC 762, the Consent Decree, Tenant, the Consent Decree, Exhibit 17, Respondent No.2, Suits

NORP: Petitioners, Tenants

WORK_OF_ART: Decree