Bombay High Court
CHHAYA BHARAT ZAVERIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. DIVISIONAL JOINT REGI. OF CO-OP SOC. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that it would not interfere with the Recovery Officer’s order and dismissed the petition, refusing any stay of the sale.
Summary
The petitioner, wife of a borrower, sought to impede the sale of Flat No.7 mortgaged by her husband to a bank by claiming that the Recovery Officer lacked jurisdiction to order separate access to the adjoining Flat No.8, which she owned. The bank obtained a court order authorising attachment and sale of Flat No.7, and the Recovery Officer granted the petitioner 15 days to arrange separate entry to Flat No.8. The petitioner challenged this direction, arguing that the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1961 did not empower the Recovery Officer to issue such directions. The High Court held that the petitioner was using the procedural hurdle to defeat the bank’s legitimate sale and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be misused. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and refused to stay the bank’s proposed sale of the property.
Issues considered
- The Recovery Officer’s jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1961 to direct separate access to an adjoining flat.
- Whether the petitioner’s objection constitutes an abuse of the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 to prevent the sale of a mortgaged property.
- Whether a stay of the bank’s sale proceedings should be granted.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961
Subjects
- mortgage
- recovery officer
- jurisdiction
- co-operative societies rules
- Article 227
- stay of execution
- property law
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36199
Megha 5_wp_1642_2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1642 OF 2024
Mrs. Chhaya Bharat Zaveri ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner.
Mr. H.R. Pawar with Ms. Sonal Bhor for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP with Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi for
Respondent -State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 2 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The case involves wife of the borrower creating hurdles in sale of
Flat No.7 mortgaged by her husband in favour of the Respondent No.2-
Bank. Husband of the Petitioner, Mr. Bharat Zaveri, who is proprietor of
M/s. BKP Enterprises, availed loan facility from Respondent No.2-Bank
by mortgaging Flat No.7. Upon default, the Bank has proceeded to attach
and sell Flat No.7. The Bank secured an order from the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate on 9 August 2019 thereby authorising the
Recovery Officer to take possession of Flat No.7 for the purpose of cause
of its sale. At this stage, the Petitioner filed an application before the
Page No.1 of 3
2 September 2026
Megha 5_wp_1642_2024
Recovery Officer posing before him a unique difficulty that Flat Nos.7
and 8 are amalgamated and that she is owner of Flat No.8. She
complained to the Recovery Officer that if Flat No.7 is sold, her entry to
Flat No.8 would get affected. She invoked jurisdiction of the Recovery
Officer by seeking necessary directions by filing Exception Application
dated 7 September 2019. By order dated 27 September 2019, the Recovery
Officer granted time of 15 days to the Petitioner to make a separate
arrangement for entry into Flat No.8. Revision preferred against order
dated 27 September 2019 has been dismissed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai vide order
dated 11 November 2019.
2) Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the Recovery Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue
direction for making the arrangement for separate access to Flat No.8. He
submits that statutory scheme of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Rules, 1961 does not invest jurisdiction in the Recovery Officer to issue
directions, which are contained in order dated 27 September 2019.
3) However, it is the Petitioner herself, who has invoked the
jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer and invited directions dated 27
September 2019. More importantly, this Court has noticed that the real
objective behind the Petitioner in filing objection before the Recovery
Officer is to somehow save sale of Flat No.7 belonging to her husband.
Thus common entry to Flat Nos.7 and 8 is used as a bogie to somehow
defeat sale of Flat No.7. This Court cannot permit its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to be misused
Page No.2 of 3
2 September 2026
Megha 5_wp_1642_2024
by the Petitioner for the purpose of achieving the objective of preventing
sale of Flat No.7 mortgaged by her husband in favour of the Bank. In that
view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders.
4) Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
5) After the order is pronounced, Dr. Warunjikar prays for stay
against actions proposed by the Bank for sale of flat No.8. Considering
the observations made while rejecting the Petition, I am not inclined to
grant any protection in favour of the Petitioner. Request for stay is
accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 2 September 2026
Date: 03/09/2026 16:02:27
Checking your session…