Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Smt Namita Gupta and Ors.

DRAT12 Oct 2022REGULAR APPEAL/4/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of four appeals regarding the setting aside of property auctions. The court quashed the Tribunal's impugned orders, accepting submissions that the auction pertained only to the portion of the property where the appellant Bank held a first charge, in accordance with a tripartite agreement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 25.02.2021 and 06.05.2022 are quashed; the appellant Bank will abide by the tripartite agreement dated 23.06.2000.

Bank of Baroda versus Smt Namita Gupta and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

Regular Appeal No. 03/2021 Date: 12.10.2022

¶2

Bank of Baroda Vs. Smt. Namita Gupta and Ors.

¶3

Regular Appeal No. 04/2021

¶4

Bank of Baroda Vs. Smita Gupta and Ors.

¶5

Appeal Dy. No. 216/2022

¶6

Aman Deep Kaur Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Ors.

¶7

Appeal Dy. No. 257/2022

¶8

Bank of Baroda Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Ors.

¶9

Present- Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, Counsel for the Bank of Baroda, Shri Prashant Kumar, Counsel for the UPFC, Shri Drupad Upadhyay, Counsel for the Auction-Purchaser, None for the borrower,

¶10

With the consent of the appearing parties, the abovementioned four appeals have been taken-up together and are being decided by this common order.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal below has set-aside the auction on the ground that the property, which was mortgaged with the UPFC, has been sold by the appellant-Bank. The learned counsel further submits that the property in question is a big property, over a part of which the appellant had first charge. It is also contended that the appellant-Bank had only auctioned that portion, over which it had first charge and the appellant had not auctioned that part of the property in question, over which the UPFC has first charge. It is next argued that all the three parties i.e. Bank of Baroda, UPFC and the borrower had entered into a tri-partite agreement dated 23.06.2000, in which the terms and conditions has been spelled out and parties are agreed to

¶12

abide by the same. Therefore, the abovementioned appeals may be disposed off setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal below.

¶13

The learned counsel for the UPFC has drawn attention of this Tribunal to the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the matter under article 227 No. 818/2022 and has argued that these facts were noted by the Hon’ble High Court also and in this regard, paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of the said order have been referred to, copy of which has been appended as annexure 14 to the Appeal Dy. No. 216/2022.

¶14

Learned counsels for the respondents agree to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶15

In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 25.02.2021 and 06.05.2022 are hereby quashed and it is made clear, as it is admitted by the Bank of Baroda, that only that part has been sold over which it had first charge and they will abide the terms and conditions of the Tri-partite agreement dated 23.06.2000 made between the parties.

¶16

The UPFC will be at liberty to proceed as per law with regard to that part of the property in question, over which it has first charge.

¶17

Accordingly, all the appeals are disposed of with no order as to cost.

¶18

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶19

VN Giri

Bank of Baroda v. Smt Namita Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Smt Namita Gupta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhatisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Canara Bank versus Pradeep Kumar Jaiswal and Anr.

Indu Singh and Anr. versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus Smt Namita Gupta and Ors.

Aman Deep Kaur versus Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Ors.

Rupesh Kumar versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.