Disposed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shankhajit Parmanik and Ors.

Delhi HC3 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/15547/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order anticipates disposal of a writ petition challenging a DRT stay on bank possession. The court simply prepones the hearing of the main appeal and directs expedited disposal without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed without deciding merits; hearing of main appeal preponed; DRT-II directed to dispose of main appeal within two months.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Shankhajit Parmanik and… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15547/2023 & CM APPL. 62296/2023

¶4

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahip Datta Parasha, Ms. Muskaan Mehra and Ms. Sanya Lamba, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

SHANKHAJIT PARMANIK AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Avneesh Garg, Advocate

¶7

% Date of Decision: 03^rd January, 2024

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25^th March, 2022, passed by the learned DRT-1, New Delhi in SA No. 129/2022, titled as “ Sankhajit Pramanik versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Ors ”, whereby the Petitioner bank was restrained from taking physical possession of subject property being Ground Floor, No. 38, Pocket No. 52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. The Petitioner further seeks directions to the Learned DRT-II to take up the application seeking recall/modification of the order dated 25^th March, 2022, at the earliest.

¶12

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the submission made by Respondent No. 1 that it is

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.01.2024 20:06:05

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) 15547/2023

¶17

ready and willing to settle the dispute between the parties and is further willing to purchase the property in question.

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that though the Respondent No. 1 deposited the amount of INR 40 lakhs with the Petitioner Bank, yet no further efforts have been made by the Respondent No. 1 to settle the matter with the Petitioner Bank and rather the Respondent No. 1 is enjoying the stay granted by the learned Tribunal by depositing a meagre amount of INR 40 lakhs when the outstanding dues in the loan account of Principal Borrower i.e., Respondent No. 3 is in excess of INR 25 crores. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 is also not paying the rental of the subject property since long to the property owner i.e., Respondent No. 2.

¶19

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner Bank made efforts to auction the property in question by issuance of Sale Notice dated 20^th April, 2022, under the provisions of SARFAESI Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, however, the Respondent No. 1 failed to participate in the same. Also no bids were received by the Petitioner Bank as the physical possession of the subject property has not been taken over by the Petitioner Bank.

¶20

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the Borrowers/Mortgagors/Guarantors jointly and severally have failed to make repayment of the amounts due and outstanding under the financial facilities granted by the Petitioner Bank and accordingly, the loan accounts of Respondent No. 3 were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 29^th January, 2019.

¶21

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that on 11^th April, 2022 the Petitioner Bank had a meeting with the Respondent No. 1 and he was asked to give his offer for purchasing the subject property in terms of the submissions

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.01.2024 20:06:05

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C) 15547/2023

¶26

made by him before the learned DRT-I, New Delhi. However, he failed to act in accordance with the offer given before the Learned DRT-I, Delhi and also stopped taking the calls of the Petitioner Bank.

¶27

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, who appears on advance notice, states that the said Respondent is a lessee of the property in question, whose lease has not been determined till date. He also states that he has made an offer to purchase the property in question, but the deal could not fructify as the bank is not in possession of the original title deeds.

¶28

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that it is not Respondent No. 1 but it is his father who was a tenant in the suit property.

¶29

Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court disposes of the present writ petition by preponing the date of hearing of SA No. 129/2022 (now numbered as TSA No. 189/2022) to 22^nd January, 2024 for directions. The learned DRT-II is directed to dispose of the main appeal itself as expeditiously as possible; preferably within two months of receipt of this order. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶30

List the matter for compliance on 08^th April, 2024.

¶31

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶33

JANUARY 3, 2024/ rhc

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:04.01.2024 20:06:05

¶36

Page 3 of 3

¶37

W.P.(C) 15547/2023

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shankhajit Parmanik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shankhajit Parmanik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Silswal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs UOI & Anr.

Glaxo Smithkline Pharma Ltd. & Vs UOI & Anr.

Mukta Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Asstt Comdt Rahul Bhasharkar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Asian Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training

Mehmoodul Hasan Vs Govt. Ofnct of Delhi and Anr.

Amar Singh Bhatia & Anr. Vs Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors.

S.B.G. and Company Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL)-1, Delhi

Rahul Anil Ahuja Vs Gurcharan Dhawan and Ors.

Mahender Singh Vs the Delhi State Co. Operative Bank Ltd.