A sole judges' hearing appointing counsel for the bank and recording a stay instruction on the asset property pending the next date while disposing an infructuous urgency application.
I.A. No.473/2022 (urgency) disposed of as infructuous; counsel for bank to obtain instruction within a week; parties to maintain status quo until 17.02.2023.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Appeal Dy. No. 811/2022 Date: 09.02.2023
Shitij Jaiswal Vs. Bank of Baroda
Present: Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the appellant,
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the interim order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the DRT, Jabalpur in S.A. No. 396/2021. The report of the Registrar dated 12.12.2022 shows that the I.A. No. 473/2022 being urgency application and I.A. No. 474/2022 being stay application have been filed.
Since the matter has been taken-up today, the I.A. No. 474/2022, which is urgency application, has become infructuous and is disposed off as such.
It is contended that the appellant is neither borrower nor mortgagor or guarantor to the loan granted by the respondent-Bank to the respondent no. 2 and he has never created any security/mortgage over the property in question and the original title deed is with him and inspite of it, the property was sought to be mortgaged and put in auction, which could not be done. The present S.A. was filed challenging the sale notice dated 10.11.2020 for auction of the property, which is allegedly stated to be mortgaged. Thereafter, an amendment application was filed in the said S.A to challenge the possession notice dated 07.02.2019, which has been rejected by the order impugned. It is further contended that the claim of the appellant has not been relinquished and only to show that entire proceeding drawn by the Bank against the appellant is bad in law, the amendment was sought.
Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, Advocaete, who is on the panel of the respondent no. 1-Bank, has been asked to obtain instruction in the matter within a week.
List this case on 17.02.2023 for reply. Till the next date, all the parties concerned are directed to maintain the status quo qua the property in question, as it exists today.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Shitij Jaiswal
Bank of Baroda
R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
