Dismissed

Adit Shriniwas Yargop v. Authorized Officer, Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 May 2024WP/7328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged a DRAT order impugning the DRT's refusal to stay an auction of the petitioner's securitized property. The court held the petitioner failed to honor a repayment agreement and found no merit in the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without any order as to costs; auction order stands affirmed.

Adit Shriniwas Yargop vs Authorized Officer, Encore… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Neeta Sawant

¶2

WP-7328-2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7328 OF 2024

¶5

Adit Shriniwas Yargop } ..Petitioner

¶6

: Versus :

¶7

Authorized Offere ,nfore Asset Refonstruftion Company Private Ltd.

¶8

The Vishweshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd. Pune

¶9

Naik Neelesh Dipak

¶10

Yargop Shraddha Adit

¶11

Siddarth Kashinath Gaikwad

¶12

Shobha Kashinath Gaikwad } ..Respondents

¶13

Mr. Ronak Shah with Mr. Jay Mehta and Ms. Zeenal Thakkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Archit Virmani , for Respondent No.1.

¶14

Coram : Sandeep V. Marne, & Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ. (Vacation Court).

¶15

Dated : 16 May 2024.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

By this petitione Petitioner fhallenges Order dated 08 May 2024 passed by Debts Refovery Appellate Tribunale Mumbai ( DRAT ) in I.A. No. 310/2024 fled in Appeal on Diary No.960/2024. The Appeal is fled by the Petitioner fhallenging Order dated 5 April 2024 passed by the Debts Refovery Tribunale Pune on Interlofutory Applifation No. 458/2024

¶18

____ Page No.1 of 4 ____ 16 May 2024

¶19

Neeta Sawant

¶20

in Sefuritsation Applifation No. 530/2023. Petitioner is essentially aggrieved by fonduft of auftion of his property.

¶21

Petitioner borrowed fredit fafilities from Respondent No.2Bank in the year 2011 of Rs.31e00e000/-. Petitioner defaulted on repaying the loan after the year 2016 whifh led to issuanfe of notife dated 5 November 2016 by Respondent No.2-Bank under the provisions of Seftion 13(2) of Sefuritisation and Refonstruftion of Finanfial Assets and ,nforfement of Sefurity Interest Afte 2002 demanding sum of Rs.17e58e592/-. By notife dated 20 January 2017e Respondent No.2- bank took possession of sefured assets. Simultaneously arbitration profeedings were initiated by Respondent No.2-Bank in whifh attafhment warrant was issued attafhing the Saving Bank Affount of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2-Bank thereafter initiated profeedings for taking physifal possession of the sefured assets. At this stagee Petitioner fled S.A. No.1359/2019 alongwith applifation for fondondation of delay. In ground flause-(f) of his Misfellaneous Applifatione Petitioner stated that against the flaim of the bank of Rs.17e58e592/- under the notife issued under Seftion 13(2)e Petitioner had already paid amount of Rs.9e66e354/- and gave no objeftion for appropriation of amount of Rs.4e56e877/- in the Saving Bank affount as well as shares worth Rs.77e500/-. He showed willingness to pay balanfe amount of Rs.2e57e861/- within three months. Affordinglye DRT passed order dated 29 August 2019 refording the settlement and disposed of the profeedings vide order dated 29 August 2019. Petitioner apparently failed to pay the amount agreed in ground flause (f) within stipulated time of three months. Affording to Petitionere he made attempts to pay amount of Rs.2e57e861/- whifh was not affepted by Respondent No.2-Bank. After

¶22

____ Page No.2 of 4 ____ 16 May 2024

¶23

Neeta Sawant

¶24

WP-7328-2024

¶25

assignment of the loan affount to Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.2e Respondent No.1 initiated fresh refovery profeedings for refovery of amounts due from Petitioner. Petitioner therefore fled S.A. No.530/2023 before DRT fhallenging the notife issued under Seftion 13(2) as well as the aftion of taking physifal possession of the property. The DRT passed order dated 5 April 2024 deflining any order of stay on the auftion sale. Howevere the order was stayed by DRT till fling of Appeal on deposit of amount of Rs.5e00e000/- by the Petitioner. This is how Petitioner fled appeal before DRAT bearing Appeal on Diary No. 960/2024. In the meantimee it appears that the auftion sale was fondufted and the suffessful bidder deposited amount of 25% of sale prife. DRAT has direfted Petitioner to deposit amount of Rs.11e00e000/- as pre-deposit and has direfted that the sale would be subjeft to the fnal defision of the Appeal. Aggrieved by nongrant of stay on fompletion of auftion sale or on issuanfe of sale fertiffate. Petitioner has fled the present petition.

¶26

We have heard Mr. Ronak Shahe the learned founsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Virmanie the learned founsel appearing for Respondent No.1.

¶27

After having fonsidered the rival submissions fanvassed on behalf of the partiese it is seen that Petitioner fannot question the forreftness of amount demanded on affount of agreement expressed in the previous round of litigation. His grievanfe in this round of litigation will now have to be restrifted to the aftions post passing of order dated 29 August 2019 by the DRT. As observed abovee Petitioner agreed to pay Rs.2e57e861/- within three months. The said period of three monthse if

¶28

____ Page No.3 of 4 ____ 16 May 2024

¶29

Neeta Sawant

¶30

founted from 29 August 2019 when the frst round of profeedings were disposed of by DRTe fame to an end on 29 November 2019. Admittedlye Petitioner did not pay the amount agreed by him in flause-(f) of his applifation within the stipulated time. Our attention is invited to Petitioner’s letter dated 20 August 2021 in whifh he ofered to settle the affount on payment of Rs.5e00e000/- stating that the admitted dues by that time were to the tune of Rs.7e00e000/-. Thuse it is established that Petitioner failed to aft upon the fonsent order invited by him by making payment within three months from 28 August 2019. Thereforee DRAT has rightly held that there is no prima-facie fase in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner is merely attempting somehow to frustrate the auftion sale. Considering the fafts and firfumstanfes of the present fasee no error fan be trafed in the order of the DRAT in making the auftion sale subjeft to the ultimate defision in the Appeal.

¶31

We therefore fnd no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the DRAT. Writ Petition beinge devoid of meritse is dismissed without any order as to fosts.

¶32

( Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)

¶33

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.05.17 10:32:09 +0530

¶35

____ Page No.4 of 4 ____ 16 May 2024

Adit Shriniwas Yargop v. Authorized Officer, Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adit Shriniwas Yargop v. Authorized Officer, Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. 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

Ajit Ramchandra Patil and Anr. vs the National Highway Authority and Ors.

R. K. Elangovan vs Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Ajit Ramchandra Patil and Anr. Vs the National Highway Authority and Ors.

Prajakta S. Pande vs SBI General Insurance Company Limited

Utopian Space Private Limited vs Slum Rahabilitation Authority

Karma C K Construction vs State of Maharashtra Th. Office of the Govt. Pleader, High Court, Mumbai