Partly allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S Goenka Jewellers & Ors.

DRAT15 Jul 2022MISC APPEAL/83/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal disposed of a miscellaneous appeal challenging an interim order stalling the sale of properties. It granted liberty to the Bank to issue a fresh notice for one flat, deemed other challenges regarding possession no longer sustainable, and transferred the case to another Debt Recovery Tribunal for consolidated disposal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Appellant Bank to issue a fresh notice for sale for Flat No. 2 alone. Order transferred.

Uco Bank versus M/S Goenka Jewellers & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 83/2019

¶3

Between

¶4

UCO Bank … Appellant/s V/s. M/s. GoenkaJewellers&Ors. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr. O.A. Das a/w Ms. Pallavi Chari, i/b M/s. O.A. Das & Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

MrPuneetGogad, Advocate for Respondents.

¶7

-: Order dated: 15/07/2022:-

¶8

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶9

In this Misc. Appeal which has been preferred challenging the impugned order of the Ld. P.O. in I.A. No. 896/2019 in S.A. No. 36/2019 dated 05.12.2019, wherein the intended sale of three items of the properties was directed to be stalled. The Flat Nos. 3 & 4 are not in existence anymore, and that is the reason why the notice pertaining to the sale of those flats is stalled. With regard to Flat No. 2, there are two reasons why the Ld. P.O. has intervened with intended sale. Firstly, the physical possession taken through an Advocate Commissioner was not proper in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in “SubirChakravarti&Anr V/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. &Anr., Writ Petition (L) No. 28480/2019, and the second reason for stalling the sale with respective Flat No. 2 is that the notice issued did not give 15 days time, as prescribed under the Act. The temporary order was granted till the disposal of

¶10

¶11

the S.A. and aggrieved with that interim order dated 05.12.2019 passed in I.A. No. 896/2019 the Appellant Bank is in Appeal.

¶12

After having heard both sides, I find that anyway the Bank could not proceed on the basis of the sale notice which gives less than 15 days time provided, and since the sale notice was issued in 2019. Now, a fresh notice will have to be issued by Bank. But in view of the interim order, the Appellant Bank may not able to proceed with such notice.

¶13

Hence, liberty is granted to the Appellant Bank to issue a notice for sale afresh with regard to Flat No. 2 alone. If there is any inadequacy in the notice, it is subject to challenge before the appropriate Forum. As regards taking over the possession by an Advocate Commissioner, the question is no longer res Integra because the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Advocate Commissioner has the power to take over the possession, and the challenge raised by the Respondent in the S.A. regarding taking over the possession under Sec.14 itself and not only the act of taking over possession through an Advocate Commissioner is no longer sustainable. That issue would be left open to be decided in the S.A. The Respondent has filed another S.A. as S.A. No. 473/2018 which is pending before D.R.T.-II, Mumbai. Therefore, both S.As will have to be decided in these two S.As. which are pending.

¶14

The S.As are pending before two D.R.Ts. S.A. No. 473/2018 which was filed earlier in point of time was filed before D.R.T.-II, Mumbai and the present S.A. No. 36/2019, which is in appeal, is filed before D.R.T. I, Mumbai. Since the S.A. which was filed earlier in point of time is pending before D.R.T.-II, Mumbai, I hereby

¶15

¶16

direct that the S.A. No. 36/2019 shall be transferred to D.R.T.-II, Mumbai to be heard together with S.A. No. 473/2018 by D.R.T. – II, Mumbai and disposed of together as expeditiously as possible at any rate within the period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶17

With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

mks-28

¶20

Uco Bank v. M/S Goenka Jewellers & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S Goenka Jewellers & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harvestdeal Securities Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Catalyst Trsuteeship Limited versus Sam Family Trust

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. versus Gurpreet Singh Alagh

Union Bank of India versus Mr Naresh N Jain and Ors.

Assests Reconstruction Co.(India) Ltd. versus M/S Shree Swaroop Enterprises & Ors.

Hotel Billy International through Its Prop Kishor Chunnilal Mantri versus Punjab National Bank