Dismissed

Dharmesh Kishor Panchal v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2022WP/10795/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a SARFAESI sale notice. The Court held that the Petitioner, as the plaintiff in the underlying suit, should have sought intervention before the sale notice was issued. The petition was dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Petitioner directed to pay ₹25,000 as costs; DRT to entertain Petitioner's application only if costs are paid.

Dharmesh Kishor Panchal Vs Punjab National… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 5-WP 10795-22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.10795 OF 2022

¶4

Dharmesh Kishor Panchal… Petitioner
Vs.

¶5

Punjab National Bank & Ors.… Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rafeeq Peermohideen i/by Chiyarajawala & Company for Petitioner.
Mr. Sarosh Bharucha & Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar i/by ANP Chambers for
Respondent No.1.

¶7

Smt. S. D. Vyas, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM:K.R. SHRIRAM &
A.S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATED :14th SEPTEMBER 2022

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1.Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing a Sale

¶11

Notice dated 16th March 2022 read with Corrigendum dated 17th March
2022 and also an order dated 29th August 2019 passed under Section 14 of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act, 2002”) by Court of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai.

¶12

2.At the outset, we have to note that Counsel Mr. Peermohideen

¶13

submitted that this Petition has been filed by the Court Receiver appointed
by the Sub-Judge 1st at Chapra, Saran, Bihar. Mr. Peermohideen also stated

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

Mugdha

¶16

2 5-WP 10795-22.doc

¶17

that as a Receiver, he has no personal interest in the property, which is the
subject matter of the Petition and his role was to bring to the notice of the
Court that the property is custodia legis and before Respondent No.1 goes
ahead with the auction, Respondent No.1 should seek intervention in the
Civil Suit pending in Chapra.

¶18

3.We find from the Petition that Petitioner is one Dharmesh
Kishor Panchal, who is Plaintiff in the Suit filed in Chapra. It is also stated
in the Petition that the Chapra Court also appointed one Mr. Sachin
Upadhyay, Advocate as Court Receiver. Therefore, the submission that Mr.
Peermohideen made to the Court as recorded in Paragraph 2 above, was
incorrect. On this being brought to his notice, Mr. Peermohideen
immediately tendered an apology to the Court and submitted that he had
received the papers only yesterday and hence there arose some confusion
at his end. He once again tendered an apology and regretted the
inadvertence at his end.

¶19

4.Be that as it may, we also note that the order passed by the
Court in Chapra appointing the Court Receiver is dated 7th March 2020,

¶20

2 of 4

¶21

Mugdha

¶22

3 5-WP 10795-22.doc

¶23

whereas the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM)
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is dated 29th August 2019,
more than six months earlier. In our view, it was for Petitioner to bring this
fact to the notice of the Court in Chapra before he obtained any order.
Further, Petitioner, if he is prejudiced by the order passed under section 14
by the CMM, Petitioner should have promptly applied to DRT under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶24

5.In the circumstances, if Petitioner wishes to take any action, it
may move the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002 and Petitioner to satisfy the DRT on merits and limitation.

¶25

6.We clarify that we have neither made any observations on
merits of such application that Petitioner may, if adviced, make before the
DRT nor have we expressed any opinion that delay, if any, should be
condoned. DRT to consider the same on merits and in accordance with
law.

¶26

7.Petition dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to be

¶27

paid by Petitioner to the Advocate on record for Respondent No.1. This

¶28

3 of 4

¶29

Mugdha

¶30

4 5-WP 10795-22.doc

¶31

amount shall be paid within two weeks from today. The DRT shall

¶32

entertain any application from Petitioner only if this amount has been paid
as ordered.

¶33

(A.S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶34

( K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶35

MUGDHA M PARANJAPE

¶36

Digitally signed by MUGDHA M PARANJAPE Date: 2022.09.19 10:19:36 +0530

¶37

4 of 4

¶38

Mugdha

Dharmesh Kishor Panchal v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmesh Kishor Panchal v. Punjab National Bank 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

Vision Container Line Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prakash Ramdas Mahajan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mangesh Keshav Mahashabde Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kamal Jaswantlal Sheth Vs Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited and 4 Ors.

M/S. Axis Technology through Its Partner and Anr. Vs Vaidyanath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. through Its Nashik Branch

Vilas Babaji Sawant Vs Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Thr Its Special Recovery Officer and Ors.