Petitioners challenged a sale of their flat to recover non-performing assets by Bank of Maharashtra under the NPA Act. The High Court rejected the petition, holding that the sale was confirmed in 2007, rights were transferred, and the challenge filed post-confirmation with the buyer not being a party could not be entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.81 OF 2009
M/s. Sanchita Marketing & Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
Bank of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Girish Agarwal i/b Mr. Mangesh Patel for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Kamat for respondent 1.
CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2009.
P.C. :-
2
AJN
initiated by respondent 1 i.e. the Bank of Maharashtra under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the NPA Act”) be declared as null and void.
AJN
3
Act and called upon the petitioners to repay to the 1st respondent in full the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,02,97,000/- along with interest at 15.25% p.a. from 10/6/2007 within the statutory period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The said notice was served on the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent 1 has filed a compilation of documents. It contains letter dated 18/12/2007 addressed by the petitioners to respondent 1 confirming that the petitioners have received all notices. Despite the service of the statutory notice, the petitioners did not repay the outstanding loan amount. Respondent 1, therefore, filed application under Section 14 of the NPA Act which was allowed on 23/7/2008. According to the petitioners, they had filed Securitisation Application No.37 of 2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, “the DRT”). The petitioners were, however, not successful. They withdrew it. After obtaining necessary order under Section 14 of the NPA Act, respondent 1 sold the said flat to one Mr. Anwar Umar Kazi and adjusted the net sale proceeds of
AJN
4
Rs.59 lakhs to the petitioners’ account. The said sale was confirmed on 25/10/2007. By this petition, the petitioners want to challenge the said sale.
5
AJN
Learned counsel submitted that the sale is confirmed way back on 25/10/2007. He submitted that Rs.59 lakhs which were recovered by respondent 1 from the buyer have been adjusted to the petitioners’ account. He submitted that for the remaining amount, respondent 1 has got a decree of the DRT and that decree is to be executed. Learned counsel has taken us through the DRT’s judgment and order dated 2/6/2009. The DRT has directed the petitioners to pay to respondent 1 Rs. 1,21,52,553.88 with interest at 12% per annum from 1/10/2006 till payment. Thus, a huge sum is still outstanding.
6
AJN
securitization applications. It appears that the petitioners were not successful in challenging the action initiated by respondent 1. The petitioners have approached this court after the confirmation of sale. The rights in respect of the said flat are already transferred to the buyer. It is pertinent to note that the buyer is not made a party to the petition. In the circumstances of the case, such a belated attempt to set aside the confirmed sale cannot be entertained. Hence, the petition is rejected.
[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the confirmed sale of the flat under the NPA Act can be set aside.
Whether the failure to serve sale notice as per Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules affects the validity of the sale.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Sanchita Marketing & Ors.
Bank of Maharashtra
Ranjana Desai
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
