The appellant sought direction to prevent the respondent-Bank from selling or transferring a residential property in its possession and requested its release. The court observed that the Bank had filed no reply despite being granted an opportunity, and rhetorically addressed the issue of closing the Bank's right to file a reply.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Appeal Dy. No. 336/2020 Date: 27.09.2022
Abhijeet Bharadwaj and Ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda and Ors.
Present: Shri Ashok Srivastava, counsel for the appellants, None for the respondent-Bank,
Pursuant to the earlier order dated 07.07.2022, last opportunity was granted to the respondent-Bank for filing reply, but no reply has been filed. Accordingly, right of the respondent-Bank to file reply is hereby closed.
An application being I.A. No. 425/2022 has been filed by the appellant before this court with a prayer for direction to the respondent no. 3 not to sale, alienate or transfer the property in their possession and to release the physical possession of the residential house to the appellants. It is contended that on behalf of the ex-parte order passed by the CMM, the respondent-Bank has taken the physical possession of the property in question forcibly, which was the residential property, along with constructed portion of another property, which is adjacent to the mortgaged property and the auction was held by the Bank in July 2020.
It is further contended that now the auction purchaser is trying to sale, alienate and create the third party interest over the property in question, which may adversely affect the right of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has chosen not to file reply as indicated vide order dated 07.07.2022, although the respondent-Bank was being representing by Shri Arun Prakash, Advocate, therefore, the direction has been issued today closing the right of the Bank for filing reply.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that in the meantime, the interest of the appellant may be protected. List this case on 16.12.2022 for hearing. Till then the parties concerned are directed to maintain the status quo qua the property in question, as it exists today.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant direction to the respondent-Bank not to sell, alienate, or transfer the property in its possession and to release physical possession to the appellants.
Whether to list the case for further hearing and maintain status quo regarding the property.
Abhijeet Bharadwaj and Ors.
Bank of Baroda and Ors.
R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
