Disposed

Nitin Patilbua Ugale v. Canara Bank

DRAT22 Aug 2023MISC APPEAL/83/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal stayed handing over possession of auctioned property (Gat No. 47/A/7) due to prima facie irregularities in extent and valuation. It disposed of the appeal, directing the DRD to decide the stay appeal within three months and maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Stay on handing over possession of Gat No. 47/A/7; status quo maintained; directed DRD to decide stay appeal within three months.

Nitin Patilbua Ugale versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 83/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Nitin Patilbua Ugale … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Canara Bank & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Charles D’souza along with Mr Aji Kumar, i/b M/s. VNA Legal, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Ms Vaishali R Bhilare along with Ms Kadambari Patil, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶8

Mr Sachin P Borhade, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

-: Order dated: 22/08/2023:-

¶10

The Appeal had come up for hearing on the stay application which was filed by the Appellant while granting an order to make a predeposit, and an injunction was granted with regard to one item of the property in Gat No. 452 but no specific injunction was granted with regard to the property comprised in Gat No. 47/A/7 which has already been sold to the auction purchaser and awaits handing over of the possession to the auction purchaser who has paid up the sale consideration in full.

¶11

The Appellant has made out a very interesting case to the effect that as per the documents produced by the Bank, it shows that the property in Gat No. 47/A/7 has an extent of 12,000 sq. mtrs. whereas the sale certificate shows the extent as only 8,505.50 sq. mtrs. which is

¶12

an anomaly which is worth enquiring into. Another anomaly that is pointed out is that no valuation certificate was obtained and the

¶13

¶14

valuation certificate which is obtained by the Appellant consequent to the sale shows the value of the property at ₹ 5.29 crores whereas the property is actually sold to the auction purchaser for only ₹ 1.40 crores and so that is an indication of undervaluation of property. The valuation certificate which was purportedly produced by the Bank prior to the sale notice has not been produced for examination by this Tribunal.

¶15

Hence, I find that a strong prima facie case is made to challenge the sale and point out some apparent irregularities with regard to the extent of the property that has been sold and also the valuation. Hence, this Tribunal is inclined to stay the handing over the possession of the property comprising Gat No. 47/A/7 scheduled to take place tomorrow i.e. 23.08.2023.

¶16

The appeal is disposed of with a direction to the D.R.T. to consider the amended portion of the pleadings in the S.A. and decide whether the sale has been properly conducted. This Tribunal is not entering into the merits of the case and the rival contentions are kept open to be decided by the Ld. Presiding Officer. The status quo with regard to both items of the properties shall be maintained till the S.A. is disposed of. The S.A. shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶17

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

mks-23

¶20

Nitin Patilbua Ugale v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Patilbua Ugale v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Dr Santosh Uttam Sawane versus Indodstar Capital Finance Ltd.

Ulhas S/O Keshavrao Joshi and Another versus Bank of India

Ms. Ggt Kaypee Limited versus Invent Assets Secuirtization and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors.

State Bank India and Ors. versus M/s. S. Rasiklal & Co. & 8 Ors.

Mr. Rajesh Shah and Others versus The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another

Assets Reconstuction Company India Ltd. versus the Official Liquidator High Court Calcutta for Consolidated Fibers and Chemicals Limited & Ors.