Bank of Baroda v. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Ors.

Appeal Dy. No. 257/2022 Date: 07.06.2022

Bank of Baroda & Ors. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation Present: Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the appellantsBank, Shri Prashant Kumar, counsel for the respondent no. 1-UPFC, Shri Balbir Yadav, counsel for the respondent no. 6-Borrower,

Shri Drupad Upadhyay, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent no. 7-Auction Purchaser and seeks time to file his vakalatnama within fortnight.

Learned counsel for the appellants-Bank states that entire proceeding with regard to the auction sale of the property in question have been set aside by the DRT, on which the respondent no. 1-UPFC is also claiming its first charge. Learned counsel further states that the similar order had been passed earlier by the Tribunal below, against which the Regular Appeal No. 03/2022 and Regular Appeal No. 04/2022 have been filed before this Tribunal, in which the interim order has been passed, copy of which has been appended at page 68 of the present appeal, therefore, he prays that the same interim order may also be passed in the present appeal and the present appeal may be clubbed with the aforesaid two appeals and heard together.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1-UPFC contends that there was a tripartite agreement dated 23.06.2000 between the Bank, UPFC and borrower. It is further contended that the auction purchaser has preferred a writ petition No. 818/2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order passed in the said writ petition has been appended at page no. 106 of Appeal Dy. No. 216/2022, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has quoted the contents of para 21 of the said writ petition, in which it was contended that the crux of the entire

controversy is that the UPFC is also claiming its right as a first charge over the property, which has been auctioned by the Bank of Baroda, since part of the property was mortgaged with the UPFC, as such the dispute pertaining to charge came before the learned DRT, Lucknow in S.A. No. 281 of 2010 and S.A. No. 282 of 2010 as well as S.A. No. 606 of 2016. The auction purchaser in the said paragraph had undertaken not to claim the part of the property, which was mortgaged with the UPFC and he had further given his undertaking to resolve the entire controversy and he will abide by the tripartite agreement dated 23.06.2000.