Disposed

Munira Murtuza Arsiwala v. Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd.

DRAT14 Oct 2022MISC APPEAL/56/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal, the Tribunal stayed the auction sale proceedings pending disposal of a substantive Second Appeal before the DRT. The court directed the lower Tribunal to decide the pending appeal expeditiously within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Mumbai to dispose of Second Appeal No. 42/2017 on its files within one month.

Munira Murtuza Arsiwala versus Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 56/2019

¶3

Between

¶4

Munira Murtuza Arsiwala … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd.

¶6

…Respondent/s

¶7

Mr. V.K. Tiwari, Advocate for Appellant.

¶8

-: Order dated: 14/10/2022:-

¶9

This Misc.Appeal which arises from the impugned order of learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T-II, Mumbai in I.A. No. 159/2017 in S.A. No. 42/2017 u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶10

The Appellant had approached the D.R.T. with an application challenging the Sarfaesi measures starting from the notice u/s 13 (2) which he alleges was not served upon her.

¶11

It is also contended that she has not signed the mortgaged deed purportedly executed with respect to her share in the joint property in favour of the first Respondent Bank to facilitate a loan which was allegedly availed by the borrower M/s. Miraje Steels Private Ltd.

¶12

The Appellant had in the aforesaid mentioned I.A. sought a stay of the sale which was proposed to be held on 26.12.2016. The learned Presiding Officer vide the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 refused to grant the stay. As a consequence of which, the sale of the subject property was conducted, and now the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the sale has been confirmed and possession handed over to the Auction Purchaser.

¶13

The prayer in the Appeal with regard to granting of a stay of the Auction has now become infructuous. The S.A. No. 42/2017 is still pending consideration and I am told that it is posted for hearing on 21th of this month.

¶14

¶15

The Respondent has not appeared to contest the Appeal. Considering the fact that the contention raised by the Appellant challenging the Sarfaesi measure is yet to be decided by the D.R.T., it would be in the interest of justices if the Appeal is disposed of with a direction to D.R.T.-II, Mumbai to dispose of S.A. No. 42/2017 on the files of that Tribunal as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

In the result of the Appeal is disposed of directing the learned Presiding Officer D.R.T.-II, Mumbai to dispose of S.A. No. 42/2017 on the files of that Tribunal as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month and from the date of receipt of this order.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

psa-19

¶19

Munira Murtuza Arsiwala v. Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munira Murtuza Arsiwala v. Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Asset Reconstruction Company(India) Limited versus Meheta Plastochem P. Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus Shri Akash Mathuradas Deshmukh and Anr.

Messrs M Sushil and Co. and Anr. versus the Royal Bank of Scotland N v and Ors.

Shri Nivrutti Namdev Wagh versus Ravindra Sakharam Nagre

Khatau Ecco Limited and Ors. versus State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors.

Ishwardas Topandas Ghanshani versus the Needs of Life Co-Op Bank Ltd.