Disposed

Mr. Nikhil Kishor Vyas v. Bank of India & Ors.

DRAT5 Jul 2022REGULAR APPEAL/42/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT appellate court disposed of an appeal regarding possession of auctioned property under SARFAESI proceedings, holding that the core dispute lies between two banks pending recovery proceedings. The court left the matter with status quo, directing the Recovery Officer to decide entitlement to sale proceeds after hearing both banks.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained; Appeal disposed with direction to Recovery Officer to decide entitlement to sale proceeds after hearing both banks.

Mr. Nikhil Kishor Vyas versus Bank of India & Ors. — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Appeal No. 42/2019

¶3

Between

¶4

Mr. Nikhil Kishor Vyas &Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. Bank of India &Ors. …Respondent/s Mr. PuneetGogad, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. O. A. Das, along with Ms. Pallavi Chari, i/b M/s. O.A. Das & Co., Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

¶5

Order dated: 05/07/2022:-

¶6

The auction of the property which was sold by the Authorized Officer of Union Bank of India in Sarfaesi proceedings stood challenged before the Recovery Officer and the Recovery Officer had ordered handing over the physical possession of the suit property to the Appellants interveners who had purchased the property from the successful auction purchaser. That order was challenged in Appeal before D.R.T.–II Mumbai and the vide impugned order dated 25.07.2018 it was observed that unless the final findings are arrived at pending investing into the matter as raised before Ld. Recovery Officer, the handing over the physical possession of the suit property by the Tribunal Receiver to the Intervener is not correct and justified and hence, the direction of the Receiver to hand over the subject property to the Appellants Intervener was quashed and set aside and the Appeal No. 10 of 2018 by D.R.T.-II, Mumbai was disposed of. The

¶7

¶8

Appellant/Intervener has come up with an Appeal challenging that order.

¶9

After having heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 Bank of India, I find that the main defence set up by the Bank of India is that they have a prior right over the property being a mortgagor earlier in point of time than the Union Bank of India. But however, the Union Bank of India in Sarfaesi proceedings proceeded against the secured assets and brought them to sale and auction. The money has come to the Union Bank of India and the property which was purchased by the auctioneer was sold to the Intervener who are Appellants here. The dispute is mainly between the Union Bank of India and the Bank of India regarding who has a prior right over the secured assets which needs to be determined in the proceedings pending before the Ld. Recovery Officer. The Union Bank of India is not a party to the Recovery Proceedings pending before the Ld. Recovery Officer but the application has been filed by the Bank of India to bring the Union Bank of India as a party to that proceedings and also to direct deposit the money which has been realized by the Union Bank of India before the Ld. Recovery Officer for final determination. Since the matter is pending determination before the Ld. Recovery Officer, I find that there is no point in considering this Appeal for deciding whether the property has to be again handed over to the Appellants or not. It would suffice if the inter se dispute between the Union Bank of India and the Bank of India is decided by bringing the Union Bank

¶10

¶11

of India as a party to the matter pending before Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶12

With this observation, the status quo shall be maintained and the Appeal is disposed of with the direction to the Recovery Officer, DRT-II Mumbai to dispose of the matter after hearing Bank of India and Union Bank of India and take a decision as to who is entitled to the sale proceeds. Consequent to that, if the Intervener is found entitled to possession of the property being a bona fide purchaser from an auctioneer is found entitled to the property, orders shall be passed accordingly. With this observation, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶13

The claim of the possession by the Intervener shall also be considered before Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for Bank of India submits that the Bank of India has no objection to handing over the possession to the Appellants subject to the ultimate decision in the matter pending before the Ld. Recovery Officer. The Ld. Recovery Officer may during the pendency of the matter, consider all these aspects including handing over interim possession to the Appellant intervener.

¶15

Sd/Chairperson

¶16

mks-26

¶17

Mr. Nikhil Kishor Vyas v. Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Nikhil Kishor Vyas v. Bank of India & 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

Mohammed Shahid Rafi versus Hdfc Bank

Ms Best Agro Foods Pvr Ltd. versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

The Authorised Officer Syndicate Bank & Ors. versus Mr Yogeshchandra C Purohit & Ors.

Continental Constructions Ltd. versus Export Import Bank of India & Ors.

Catalyst Trsuteeship Limited versus Sam Family Trust

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. versus The Official Liquidator Bombay High Court