Disposed

Yohan Poonawalla v. Prateek Pardeep Agarwal and Ors.

DRAT12 Oct 2022MISC APPEAL/128/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal, the Tribunal observed that while the impugned order lacked clarity on the reason for keeping steps in abeyance, the sale certificate was registered. The Tribunal directed no further third-party interests and ordered the disposal of the sale within two months before vacating the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directive to make no third-party interest and dispose of sale appeal within two months; appeal disposed of.

Yohan Poonawalla versus Prateek Pardeep Agarwal and Ors. — DRAT (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 128/2022

¶2

Between

¶3

Mr Yohan Poonawalla … Appellant/s V/s.

¶4

Mr Prateek Pradeep Agarwal & Ors. … Respondent/s

¶5

Mr Rajesh Nagori along with Ms Yashashree Munde and Ms Sailee Dhayalkar, Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

Mr. Aloka Mishar, i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶7

-: Order dated: 12/10/2022:-

¶8

The Appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Presiding Officer dated 26.07.2022 in S.A. No. 116/2019 wherein the learned Presiding Officer Observed thus –

¶9

“The respondent to file reply on the pending IA as well as SA. Meanwhile, looking to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, any further step may be kept in abeyance with regard to the property in question. At this stage Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 4 informs that the sale certificate has already been issued.”(sic)

¶10

The S.A. now stands for hearing before the D.R.T., and I am told across the Bar that the pleadings are complete. Even if it is not complete, it is agreed to be completed within two weeks.

¶11

The history of this matter pertains to challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 8(5) (d) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The subject property was sold by way of a private treaty. A Writ Petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and thereafter, it was also taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted a stay till the disposal of the Writ Petition pending before the High Court and further steps pertaining to the sale by way of the private treaty was kept in abeyance.

¶12

¶13

The Hon’ble High Court thereafter disposed of the Writ Petition clarifying the requirements for a sale by way of a private treaty, but refused to go into the merits of the case stating that it is left to the D.R.T.-I, Mumbai to decide since there are others points also to be determined in the S.A.

¶14

It is also submitted that consequent to the disposal of the Writ Petition the sale certificate that was issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser has been registered.

¶15

The learned Presiding Officer has not clarified the reason for keeping the further steps pertaining to the property in abeyance, which ought to have been mentioned in the impugned order. Though there is a lack of clarity in the order, I find that the Auction Purchaser has already got a sale certificate registered in his name and the S.A. is also ripe to being heard on merits.

¶16

Under the circumstances, I would direct that no third-party interest shall be created till the S.A. is disposed of, but in view of the stalling of the proceedings, the learned Presiding Officer shall make an earnest endeavour to dispose of S.A. 116/2019 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the receipt of this order.

¶17

With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

psa-10

¶20

Yohan Poonawalla v. Prateek Pardeep Agarwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yohan Poonawalla v. Prateek Pardeep Agarwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Bank versus M/s. Indage Wines

M/s Prabhu Construction and Anr. versus Canara Bank

Mrs Gloria Joseph Cardoza versus Bank of India and Ors.

Ifci Factors Limited versus Patil Construction and Infrastructure Private Limited

The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited versus Shirish Lalaso Pawar

Union Bank of India versus M/S Shree Aravali Finlease Limited and Ors.