Allowed

Manoj Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023WRIC/1009/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking mandamus for registration of a sale deed and delivery of physical possession of an auctioned property under the SARFAESI Act. Court directed the Bank to ensure delivery of possession and registration of the sale certificate, provided there was no legal impediment.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.2 to ensure delivery of possession of the auctioned property and registration of the sale certificate to the petitioner, provided there is no legal impediment.

Manoj Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1009 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Kesarwani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashwant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Anadi Krishna Narayana,Avinash Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.3 and 4 to ensure registration of the sale deed and also hand over actual physical possession of the auctioned property at serial no.1 of the notification dated 8.05.2012 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a property in auction sale held by the respondent-Bank. The auction was in respect of a property held in security by the Bank. It belonged to the borrower and was sold by the Bank in exercise of its powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. A sale certificate was issued on 30.07.2012 but till date, it was not got registered. The actual physical possession of the property has also not been delivered to the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Bank have made a joint statement that the borrower has not challenged the auction proceedings nor any other proceeding initiated by the Bank against the borrower for recovery of its dues under the Act. They also point out that the District Magistrate, Allahabad had passed an order in favour of the respondent-Bank in Case No.39 of 2010-11 under Section 14 of the Act on 22.10.2014, but the said order has not been implemented so far.

¶8

We are of the opinion that the respondent authorities by not implementing the order passed under Section 14 have succeeded in frustrating the very object of the Act, as it is stated before us that there is no legal impediment in giving effect to the said order.

¶9

We dispose of the instant petition with direction to respondent no.2 to ensure delivery of possession of the property in question in respect of which sale certificate dated 30.7.2012 was issued in favour of the petitioner expeditiously, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶10

The respondent-Bank shall also ensure that the sale certificate is registered, provided the petitioner completes all formalities in this behalf.

¶11

(Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 28.1.2023 SL

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anirudh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Premvati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. through Its Duly Constituted Attorney / Authorised Representative Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baboo Lal Sharma Vs Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mrs. Jai Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others