Ajay Kumar v. Union Bank of India and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal dismissing SARFAESI Act appeal against DRT order dismissing sale petition; appeal dismissed as no good ground made out; insufficiency of pre-deposit noted.
What did the court decide?
No order as to costs; appeal dismissed.
What the court decided
Appeal Dy. No. 646/2022 Date: 23.01.2023
Ajay Kumar Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors.
Present: Shri Vijay Gopal, counsel for the appellant, Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the final order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the DRT, Dehradun in S.A. No. 164/2021. The report of the Registrar dated 07.12.2022 shows that I.A. No. 358/2022 being urgency application, I.A. No. 360/2022 being waiver application, I.A. No. 361/2022 being stay application and I.A. No. 359/2022 being delay condonation application have been filed and no pre-deposit has been made.
Since the matter has been taken up today, therefore the urgency application being I.A. No. 358/2022 has become infructuous and is disposed off as such.
The aforesaid report further shows that as per sale notice dated 07.10.2021, the dues against the appellant was Rs. 17,70,923.01 as on 31.03.2019 along with interest and the mortgaged property has been auctioned for Rs. 21.10 lacs. The impugned order dated 24.06.2022 shows that the account has been settled, therefore, the S.A. was disposed off in the light of the statement so made by both the parties.
After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and after perusing the order impugned, no good ground is made out. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 24.06.2022. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the dismissal of Sale Petition should be allowed.
Whether the quantum of dues and auction sale proceeds justify interference with the impugned order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ajay Kumar
- respondent
Union Bank of India
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · January
- CNR
- 091090006462022
- Topic
- Arbitration
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court