Smt Punita Mathur v. Bank of Baroda
Case brief
What is this about?
Single bench order in an appeal against a DRT order where the appellant is not the mortgagor but the bank sold property in their name. The court directed notices for waiver under two modes, directed parties to maintain status quo regarding the property, and listed the case for further service.
What did the court decide?
Directing issuance of notices via registered post and speed post; directing maintenance of status quo on the property pending service.
Appeal Dy. No. 606/2022 Date: 11.11.2022
Smt. Punita Mathur Vs. Bank of Baroda
Present: Shri Kushagra Dixit, counsel for the appellant,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the final order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the DRT, Dehradun in M.A. No. 40/2021.
The report of the Registrar dated 03.11.2022 shows that the I.A. No. 331/2022 being delay condonation application and I.A. No. 330/2022 being waiver application are pending consideration. The said report further reveals that no predeposit has been made and the appellant is neither borrower, nor guarantor or mortgagor. Further, the respondent-Bank has sold the property of the appellant, although the sale notice does not bear the name of the appellant.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the property of the appellant was never mortgaged with the respondent-Bank, but the said property has been sold, which has been admitted by the respondent-Bank. In this regard, reference has been made to page No. 103 of the memo of the appeal, which is an order dated 31.07.2022 passed by the Tribunal below and Paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the said order have been referred to. It is further contended that once the Bank itself has stated that the Bank is only concerned with the old Khasra No. 511/1 and is not proceeding against the Khasra number and not old Khasra No. 511/8, but the property of the appellant has also been sold by the respondent-Bank, which could not be proceeded by the Bank.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether notice for waiver of delay should be issued to the respondents.
Whether the appellant should be directed to maintain the status quo regarding the property in question.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Punita Mathur
- respondent
Bank of Baroda
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · November
- CNR
- 091090006062022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
10 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court