Allowed

Mr. Milind Agnihotri and Anr. v. M/S. Pratap Co.Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2015WP/8209/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an auction purchaser under SARFAESI Act, sought sale certificate hindered by inter se bank dispute over prior rights and pending securitisation. Court directed issuance of certificate and possession, noting charge applies to sale-proceeds, and set aside DRT order. Pending hearing expedited.

What did the court decide?

Sale certificate directed to be issued and registered; vacant possession handed over within one week; impugned DRT order set aside.

Mr. Milind Agnihotri and Anr. Vs M/S. Pratap Co.Op. Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP. 8209-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 8209 OF 2015

¶5

Milind Agnihotri & Anr. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

M/s. Pratap Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Prathmesh Kamat a/w Yashodhan Gavankar i/b Niteen Kamat, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. S. N. Fadia, for Respondent No. 1. Mr. R. K. Singh, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶10

Ms. Priya Baliga, for Respondent No. 4 – ICICI Bank

¶11

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2015 PC.

¶13

The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the

¶14

Petitioner, who is an auction purchaser who has purchased the property in auction which had taken place pursuant to the directions given by the DRT under the SARFAESI Act, the sale-certificate is not

¶15

being issued because there is inter se dispute between the Banks

¶16

claiming to be having prior rights over the suit property. In our view,

¶17

so far as inter se rights between the banks are concerned, that should

¶18

1 / 3

¶19

WP. 8209-15

¶20

not be an impediment in issuance of the sale-certificate to the Petitioner because inter se rights would be decided and whoever finally succeeds, can claim the sale-proceeds of the said auction sale. It is not in dispute that the property which was sold in auction which had taken place, and the bid which was given by the Petitioner was not below the market-price or the price was not inadequate. This being the position, we direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue the salecertificate in favour of the Petitioner and get it registered, and also hand over vacant possession of the property forthwith and in any case within a period of one week to the Petitioner.

¶21

It is clarified that pendency of securitisation application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 has nothing to do with the salecertificate since there is no charge over the suit property but the charge will have to be on the sale-proceeds of the auction sale.

¶22

We must note here that in several cases which have come before us, the auction purchaser has to wait some times indefinitely, even after paying the entire amount of sale consideration and for one reason or the other the sale-certificate is not issued. This results in erosion of trust of the public at large in the auctions which are held by

¶23

2 / 3

¶24

WP. 8209-15

¶25

the Recovery Officers pursuant to the orders passed by the DRT. We hope and trust the DRT will do needful and ensure that no auction purchaser has to wait after he bids and deposits sale-consideration while purchasing the property which is auctioned.

¶26

It is further clarified that in the event Respondent No. 1 finally succeeds in establishing its claim as a prior mortgagee over the suit property, the sale-certificate would stand modified and the salecertificate would be deemed to be issued by Respondent No. 1. Hearing of the Securitisation Application before the DRT is expedited. Impugned order passed by the DRT restraining the Bank from issuing sale-certificate is set aside. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

Vinayak Halemath

¶28

3 / 3

Mr. Milind Agnihotri and Anr. v. M/S. Pratap Co.Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Milind Agnihotri and Anr. v. M/S. Pratap Co.Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Kaur Vs Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

M/S Nestle India Limited Vs the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and 3 Ors.

Kankubai Harakhlal Jain and 6 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Ansari Rafiq(M/S Libas Dress Materials) Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Sushila Bhawarlal Jain and Ors. Vs Brijesh Mohan Hari and Ors.

Kedar Sudhakar Gorakshakar and Asavari S.Gorakshakar Vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader High Court O.S.and 4 Ors.