The tribunal disposed of an appeal challenging an order refusing stay on possession measures under SARFAESI. The court held the appeal infructuous and directed swift disposal of the stay application.
Appeal disposed; direction for expedite disposal of the stay application.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
Misc. Appeal No. 60/2022
Between
Parvati Sudam Pingale & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
Bank of Baroda & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr Rohan H. Chandurkar a/w Ms Amita Chaware, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr Sachin Fuladi, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Mr Atul Pande, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 & 3.
-: Order dated: 14/09/2022:-
1
delegate the act to his subordinate, Naib Tehsildar The Ld. Presiding Officer has expressed a view that the taking over possession by Naib Tehsildar is not defective. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and also Respondent No. 2 & 3 have relied upon a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2876/2020 dated 14.02.2020 wherein it was held that a Tehsildar who has been delegated to take over possession cannot sub-delegate the taking over possession to his subordinate. The Appellants as well as Respondents No. 2 & 3 are anxious about the observation made in the impugned order regarding the adequacy of the notice wherein the Naib Tehsildar had intended to take possession. I consider that only a prima facie finding could have been made at the interlocutory stage. Moreover, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants filed pursis stating that intended possession was not acted upon and therefore, under the circumstances, the interlocutory order made by the Ld. Presiding Office in I.A. No. 605/2022 has become infructuous for all practical purposes. Hence the Appeal also would be rendered infructuous. But the anxiety of the Appellants and Respondents No. 2 & 3 is that the adverse observations made by the Ld. Presiding Officer in the impugned order upholding the sub-delegation to the Naib Tehsildar, would be working against them in their defence in the S.A, as and when it is taken up for final hearing.
I make it clear that the observation made regarding the sufficiency of the action taken by the Naib Tehsildar in the impugned order by the Ld. Presiding Office is only a prima facie finding, and shall not influence the ultimate finding of the Ld. Presiding Officer while
2
considering the contention of the parties in the S.A. The parties are at liberty to raise their contention including the contention regarding the inadequacy of the notice delegating the taking over possession of the secured assets by the Naib Tehsildar.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-16
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against an interlocutory order rejecting a stay in Sarfaesi proceedings is maintainable.
Whether adverse observations in the impugned order render the current appeal infructuous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at BombayReferred¶11
Writ Petition No. 2876/2020 dated 14.02.2020
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parvati Sudam Pingale & Ors.
Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
