Dismissed

Mr. Aleem Khan v. Bank of Maharashtra & Anr.

DRAT1 Nov 2022MISC APPEAL/3/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his impleading application. The Tribunal held that once the main securitisation application was disposed of, an application to implead a third party was no longer maintainable, regardless of the appellant's claim regarding bid amount payment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal MA (SA) 3/2019 is dismissed with costs and all pending IAs stand closed.

Mr. Aleem Khan versus Bank of Maharashtra & Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 1^st of November, 2022

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

¶5

CHAIRPERSON

¶6

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶7

(IA No. 3920/2015 in IR No. 282/2014, DRT, Bangalore)

¶8

Between

¶9

Mr. Aleem Khan, S/o Mohammed Khan, R/o H.No: 12-8-12/225, Siya Talab, Raichur – 584 102.

¶10

….Appellant

¶11

And

¶12

Bank of Maharashtra,

¶13

Represented by its Authorised Officer, Bangalore Zonal Office, No. 15, Police Station Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

¶14

Shri B. Venkatesh, S/o B. Subbaiah,

¶15

Proprietor: Subbaiah Spun Pipes & Fly Ash Bricks, H/No.12/1/3-B, Basavana Bhavi, Raichur – 584 102.

¶16

…..Respondents

¶17

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. S. Haja Hohideen Gisthi Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. Sathiyanarayanan Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Mr. M. K. Venkatramana

MA (SA) 3/2019

ORDER

This Appeal is against a Common Order of DRT, Bangalore dated 22.09.2015 in IA Nos. 2433/2015 to 2435/2015 filed by Respondent No.2 herein and IA 3920/2015 filed by Appellant herein.

¶22

Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-

¶23

Respondent No.2 herein availed loan from 1^st Respondent Bank, and as the same was not repaid, 1^st Respondent Bank took possession of mortgaged property on 26.12.2013, and thereafter, issued a Sale Notice and fixed E-auction of property on 10.02.2014.

¶24

¶25

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶26

Respondent No.2 herein, filed Securitisation

¶27

Application before DRT, Bangalore seeking stay of auction, and DRT by its Order dated 07.02.2014, declined to grant stay of sale schedule to be held on 10.02.2014, however, directed Respondent No.2 herein to deposit Rs.1 Lakh on or before 10.02.2014 and remaining outstanding amount with interest before 24.02.2014, and on deposit of Rs.1 Lakh, directed Authorised Officer of 1^st Respondent Bank herein to defer confirmation of sale.

¶28

Appellant herein participated in E-auction dated 10.02.2014 and was declared as the highest bidder for a bid amount of Rs.44.22 Lakhs, and Appellant herein a sum of Rs.11.81 Lakhs on deposit 13.02.2014, and thereafter, filed Application IA

¶29

¶30

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶31

429/2015 to implead himself as a party to

¶32

Securitisation Application.

¶33

DRT, Bangalore, disposed of Securitisation

¶34

Application on 27.02.2015, directing Respondent No.2

¶35

herein, to pay entire loan amount within one month, and on failure, permission granted to Respondent No.2 to clear Bank loan amount shall stand cancelled automatically, and impleading Petition of Appellant is disposed of directing Appellant herein to approach 1^st Respondent Bank .

¶36

Respondent No.2 herein filed Interlocutory

¶37

Application seeking further time of three months to

¶38

pay outstanding balance, and DRT, by Order dated 15.04.2015, granted further time of two months. Respondent No.2 herein, paid a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs

¶39

¶40

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶41

on 15.06.2015, and again filed Interlocutory

¶42

Applications; i) to grant time to pay remaining amount, ii) to stay the registration of Sale Certificate and iii) to direct Bank to furnish statement of account. Appellant herein filed IA 3920/2015 with a prayer to implead him to the proceedings.

¶43

In the meantime, Appellant herein claims to have deposited 75% of bid amount, but Bank through Letter dated 24.06.2015 asked Appellant herein to receive back Rs.11.81 Lakhs paid on 13.02.2014 towards EMD initial bid amount, and Tribunal below through impugned Order dated 22.09.2015, dismissed three Applications of borrower/ Respondent No.2 herein, directing him to approach 1^st Respondent Bank and get the matter settled, on clarifying this, Bank was directed to consider the

¶44

¶45

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶46

request of Respondent No.2 as per law. Tribunal

¶47

below dismissed Application of Appellant herein (bidder) holding that same does not survive as the main SA is already disposed of on 27.02.2015, and aggrieved by dismissal of said Application, present Appeal is preferred.

¶48

All the parties filed Written Submissions, and Appellant filed additional Written Submissions even after conclusion of arguments. Learned Counsels appearing for parties reiterated the Written Submissions at the time of oral arguments.

¶49

Main contention of Appellant is that he paid total

¶50

bid amount, therefore, Authorised Officer of 1^st Respondent Bank has to issue Sale Certificate and register the same in his favour. Appellant in his

¶51

¶52

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶53

additional Written Submissions contended that he

¶54

paid 25% of auction amount comprising on Rs.11,51,250/by paying Rs.2,00,000/06.02.2014, Rs.1,80,000/on 06.02.2014 and Rs.7,71,250/- on 12.02.2014. He further contended that he deposited Rs.2,50,000/- on 03.06.2015 and transferred Rs.30,00,000/- from his account, without

¶55

giving date of transfer, and transferred Rs.16,00,000/- from his account, also without giving any date of transfer, and thus, claims to have paid total bid amount.

¶56

On the other hand, Advocate for 1^st Respondent Bank submitted that Appellant paid 75% of bid amount, without any demand by transferring it from his account, but again, withdrawn said amount from his account for the reasons best known to him, and

¶57

as Rs.11.81 Lakhs is available with Bank, they

¶58

¶59

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶60

requested Appellant through Letter dated 24.06.2015 to receive back said amount.

¶61

It is clear from the submissions of both sides that 2^nd Respondent has cleared the entire loan amount on 29.09.2015 by paying Rs.2,51,311/-, which reflects outstanding plus interest as on that date. It is also clear from submissions of Advocate for 1^st Respondent Bank and Advocate for 2^nd Respondent borrower that sale is not confirmed, and remaining 75% of bid amount is not paid within time stipulated under the rules. When sale is not confirmed, as rightly pointed out by Advocates for Respondents, claim of Appellant for issuance of Sale Certificate and its registration, is not at all tenable.

¶62

¶63

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶64

As already referred to above, the simple point involved in this case is whether Tribunal below is justified in dismissing impleading Petition of

¶65

Appellant herein.

¶66

It is not in dispute that Appellant herein filed impleading Petition when the main SA was pending, and at the time of disposal of main SA, Tribunal below disposed of impleading Petition as well. Admittedly, Order dated 27.02.2015 directing Appellant to approach Bank, is not challenged. It is also not in dispute that after 27.02.2015, main SA is not pending, and subsequent Applications filed by borrower Respondent No.2 herein, are only seeking extension of time for deposit of money and as the time fixed in final Order dated 27.02.2015 is expired. Appellant also not challenged final Order dated

¶67

¶68

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶69

27.02.2015, wherein Tribunal below permitted borrower/2^nd Respondent herein, to repay the

¶70

outstanding amount.

¶71

herein filed IA on Appellant 3920/2015

¶72

25.08.2015, and in his Affidavit filed in support of Petition, nothing is whispered about the date on which remaining 75% of bid amount is paid, except stating he paid 100% of auction amount, and request in the said Application is to grant leave to him to come on record by impleading himself as he has paid

¶73

100% bid amount to Respondent Bank.

¶74

Admittedly, by that date, main SA is not pending. As rightly pointed out by Advocates for Respondents,

¶75

an Application to implead a party in a disposed of

¶76

case, is not maintainable. Further, when Appellant

¶77

¶78

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶79

moved a similar Application when the main case was

¶80

pending, and when that Application is disposed of without granting any relief of impleading Appellant as a party through Order dated 27.02.2015, and when Appellant has not challenged said Order, subsequent Application for the very same relief, is definitely not maintainable. That is what Tribunal below observed in its Order holding that IA of Appellant does not survive on account of non existence of main case on the file of Tribunal, thereby Application of third party does not survive. I do not find any wrong in the Order of Tribunal below, and Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, is absolutely right in dismissing the Application of Appellant, particularly, when no proceedings are pending, the question of impleading a third party, does not arise.

¶81

¶82

MA (SA) 3/2019

¶83

In view of my foregoing observations and discussions, it is held that Appeal is devoid of merits and all the contentions regarding payment of bid amount etc., and seeking direction to be given to Bank for issuing a Sale Certificate and registration, are not the subject matter of lis , therefore, the entire arguments focused on behalf of Appellant are not relevant to the issue on hand.

¶84

For these reasons, Appeal MA (SA) 3/2019 is dismissed with costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶85

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 1^st of November, 2022]

¶86

Sd/- [ Justice S. Ravi Kumar ] CHAIRPERSON

¶87

Mr. Aleem Khan v. Bank of Maharashtra & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Aleem Khan v. Bank of Maharashtra & Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jalapathy Rao K versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Raghuraman.v versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Balakrishnan T versus Karnataka Bank Limited

E Kumar versus a O Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Bhojwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & o

Indian Bank versus Sri Krishnamurthy and Anr.