Bombay High Court
SUKHBIR KAUR W/O IQBAL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner may file an objection before the Designated Court under Section 7(3) of the MPID Act, and the High Court should not intervene in the attachment process.
Summary
The petitioner, Sukhbir Kaur, sought a direction from the Bombay High Court to prevent the State of Maharashtra from attaching properties listed in two notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. She contended that the properties were in her name and not those of her husband or son, who are directors of a defaulter company. The Court noted that the MPID Act provides a procedure for affected persons to raise objections before the Designated Court before an attachment becomes absolute, under Section 7(3). It held that the petitioner is free to approach the Designated Court to assert her exclusive ownership and that the High Court should not intervene in the attachment process. The Court also clarified that the Supreme Court‑appointed Committee for NSEL decree execution will consider any objection and the Designated Court’s decision. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct the State to raise attachment of the petitioner’s properties when the MPID Act provides a specific remedy before the Designated Court.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to raise an objection to the attachment under Section 7(3) of the MPID Act before the attachment becomes absolute.
- Whether the order of this Court would affect the functioning of the Supreme Court‑appointed Committee for execution of NSEL decrees.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- attachment
- MPID Act
- Designated Court
- objection
- property rights
- NSEL
- writ petition
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.09.05
CHITNIS 12:26:26 +0530
903-wp.1462.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1462 OF 2026
Sukhbir Kaur W/o Iqbal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Sanjiv Punalekar with Mr. Sachin Kanse, Ms. Ekta Rajpurohit i/b
Mr. Sachin Kanse for the Petitioner.
Ms. Leena Patil, Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Sangeeta Shinde,
A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr. Arvind Lakhawat with Mr. Nimeet Sharma i/b MZM Legal LLP,
for the Respondent No.3 – National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL)
API – Bharat Mane, Unit – 14, NSEL, EOW, Mumbai, is present.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
1. The petitioner, Sukhbir Kaur, wife of Iqbal Singh, has
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction against the
respondent-State to raise the attachment on the properties set out in
Exhibit-F, which form part of two Notifications issued by the
Government of Maharashtra by invoking Section 4(1) of the
N. S. Chitnis 1/5
903-wp.1462.2026.doc
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”). The properties purportedly
attached are covered by two Notifications, namely, the Notifications
dated 31st March 2017 and 11th April 2016, respectively.
The claim of the petitioner is that the properties stand in
her own name and that she is in no way concerned with the
Notifications issued by the State Government in the wake of the
defaults committed by various companies towards the National Spot
Exchange Limited (“NSEL”), and the offences registered by the
Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”) invoking various provisions of the
Indian Penal Code as well as the MPID Act.
According to the petitioner, her husband and son are
alleged to be Directors of Namdhari Foods International Private
Limited, which is also shown as a defaulter in the Notifications. It is,
however, her specific contention that the properties attached are not
properties standing in the name of the Directors of Namdhari Foods
International Private Limited, but stand in her name.
N. S. Chitnis 2/5
903-wp.1462.2026.doc
2. We confronted Mr. Punalekar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, with the remedy available to him before the
Designated Court in respect of the attachment. Upon the Notification
being issued and before the attachment is made absolute, a procedure
is contemplated whereby the Designated Court is required to issue
notice to any other person whose property is attached and vested in
the Competent Authority by the Government under Section 4, calling
upon such person to show cause as to why the order of attachment
should not be made absolute.
Section 7(3) of MPID Act also contemplates that any
person claiming an interest in the property attached or any portion
thereof may, notwithstanding that no notice has been served upon him
under the said Section, make an objection in respect thereof before the
Designated Court at any time before an order is passed under sub-
section (4) or sub-Section (6), i.e. before the attachment is made final.
N. S. Chitnis 3/5
903-wp.1462.2026.doc
In these circumstances, in our view, since the State
Government has already initiated proceedings making the attachment
in the two Notifications absolute, and the attachments are not yet
made absolute, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Designated
Court and raise an objection that the properties attached belong
exclusively to her. Upon such objection being raised, the Designated
Court is duty-bound to consider the same and decide the objection in
accordance with law.
At this stage the learned counsel representing the NSEL
submits that this order shall not, in any manner come in the way of
Supreme Court appointed Committee for attachment of the
properties. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to clarify that the
Committee appointed by the Supreme Court for execution of the
decrees obtained by the NSEL, definitely will take a call depending
upon the objection that is filed and the pronouncement from the
Designated Court on the said objection.
N. S. Chitnis 4/5
903-wp.1462.2026.doc
With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 5/5
Checking your session…