Disposed

SBI Global Factors Limited through Ms. Komal Sahasrabuddhe Authorized Representative v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2024APEAL/272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A non-banking financial company challenged rejection of its intervention application seeking release of mortgaged properties attached under the MPID Act. The High Court held the application was premature since attachment had not attained finality, but allowed liberty to file Section 7(3) objections and disposed of the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

SBI Global Factors Limited through Ms. Komal… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1/4 36 apeal 272 of 2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.272 OF 2024

¶4

SBI Global Factors Limited

¶5

…. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.S.V. Gavand, APP for Respondent – State.

¶10

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 16^th JULY 2024.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 The present appeal under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (M.P.I.D. Act), is fled by a non banking fnancial company, and it has raised the challenge to the order dated 16^th September, 2023, passed by the M.P.I.D. Court on an application fled for intervention (Order Below Exhibit– 116).

¶14

Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH PRAKASH AHER AHER Date: 2024.07.22 11:00:08 +0530

¶15

The background facts in nutshell would reveal that the appellant had sanctioned certain facilities to One More Thought Entertainment Private Limited and this contemplated mortgage of properties incorporated in the sanction letter.

¶16

Rajeshri Aher

¶17

2/4 36 apeal 272 of 2024.doc

¶18

The necessary compliance in form of declaration cum indemnity, letter of confrmation for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds was in respect of the said subject fats i.e. Flat No.301, Building No.“B”, 3^rd Floor, Supreme Green Woods, Kondhwa Khurd, Taluka–Haveli, District Pune and Flat No.602, Building No.“B”, 6^th Floor, Supreme Green Woods, Kondhwa Khurd, Taluka–Haveli, District Pune. Since the borrower failed to discharge the liability, the account was classifed as, “Non-Performing Asset” (NPA), and appropriate proceedings were initiated under the The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002), by fling appropriate Application under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for taking physical possession. It is also the claim of the appellant that upon the application being allowed, the properties came in possession of the appellant.

¶19

However, the appellant received a communication from EOW, Palghar, informing that the properties are seized in the wake of initiation of proceedings under the M.P.I.D. Act, and on coming to know about this, the appellant preferred an Interim Application on 29^th September, 2019, before the M.P.I.D. Court, Vasai in M.P.I.D. Case No.2 of 2016, for setting aside of the attachment by the EOW for the properties, which are already mortgaged and which were part of the SARFAESI proceedings.

¶20

2 The impugned order clearly record that till the time when the application was taken up for hearing, the Competent Authority had not fled any application, as contemplated under

¶21

Rajeshri Aher

¶22

3/4 36 apeal 272 of 2024.doc

¶23

Section 5 of the M.P.A.D. Act, before the Designated Court, and hence, the question of according fnality to the attachment, did not arise at all, and therefore, it was noted that the application fled by the appellant was premature.

¶24

Perused the impugned order. Paragraph No.16 of the impugned order has rightly record that since that stage has not arrived, the properties in question cannot be released, as prayed by the intervenor. However, it would have been appropriate for the M.P.I.D. Court to keep this application pending for its consideration, when the actual stage of the attachment attaining fnality on an application fled by the Competent Authority would arise. Instead, the learned Judge rejected the application.

¶25

3 The limited grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant today before us is as regards rejection of this application, and at present he restrict his appeal to prayer Clause (d), where he seek liberty to fle his objection under Section 7(3) of the M.P.I.D. Act, before the M.P.I.D. Court, as and when the stage arises.

¶26

We see no diffculty in granting this relief, as we fnd that, infact the learned Judge could have kept the application for intervention pending, but having chosen not to do so, if it is the case of the appellant that the subject properties are already in his possession, in the wake of the order passed under the SARFAESI Act, he defnitely, would be allowed to raise his objection under Section 7(3) of the M.P.I.D. Act.

¶27

Rajeshri Aher

¶28

4/4 36 apeal 272 of 2024.doc

¶29

By reserving the said liberty, we dispose of the Appeal by clarifying that the observations made by the M.P.I.D. Court which would impact the merits of the case shall not come in the way of the Court in deciding an objection, if preferred by the appellant.

¶30

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶31

Rajeshri Aher

SBI Global Factors Limited through Ms. Komal Sahasrabuddhe Authorized Representative v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

SBI Global Factors Limited through Ms. Komal Sahasrabuddhe Authorized Representative v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Shihori Rajbhar vs Manisha Jitendra Rajbhar and Anr.

Sagar Maruti Suryawanshi vs State of Maharashtra

Ansari Waqar Ahmad Mohd. Yusuf vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Ramesh Ramdhumal and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhimayya Lingayya Bhandari vs Commissioner of Police Pune City and Ors.

Kalyan Bansidharrao Renge vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.