In appeal, the Tribunal noted the appellant deposited pre-deposit amounts via demand drafts. It observed the property had been auctioned but possession not handed over. The matter was adjourned to allow the bank to verify possession status and actual dues.
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. 445/2023 Date: 17.04.2023
M/s Naya Nagar Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Present: Shri Rajeev Saran along with Shri Ambuj Tiwari, counsel for the appellant, Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2- Bank, Shri A. K. Rashidi along with Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the respondent no. 3,
Learned counsel for the appellant has deposited three demand drafts bearing draft No. 155672 dated 10.04.2023 for Rs. 39,37,500/-, draft No. 155674 dated 10.04.2023 for Rs. 39,37,500/- and draft No. 155673 dated 10.04.2023 for Rs. 78,75,000/-, total Rs. 1,57,50,000/- towards pre-deposit, which may be kept in the shape of FDR in the nationalized Bank for a period of one year in auto renewal scheme.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the property in question is a dwelling house of one of the guarantors, who is an 88 years old person. Further the notices dated 07.09.2022 and 15.09.2022 are illegal and deserve to be set aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal. It is further submitted that if the impugned order remains operational, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, considering the difficulty of the appellant, the respondent-bank may be restrained to proceed further and effect and operation of the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 and notices dated 07.09.2022 and 15.09.2022 may be stayed as the appellant is ready to deposit entire amount due along with interest.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contends that on account of prevailing situation in the city of Prayagraj and non availability of internet facility, he could not obtain the
instruction from the Bank. He states that the possession of the property in question, which has been auctioned, has already been taken over and sale certificate has been issued in favour of the auction purchaser, but the possession has not yet been handed over to the auction purchaser, who has deposited entire auction amount.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contends that 3 days’ time may be granted to obtain instruction with regard to the possession, as to whether a part of the property in question has been taken in possession or entire property and with regard to the actual dues payable by the appellant and the offer which has been made by the appellant.
List this case on 02.05.2023.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a stay on the impugned order and notices pending deposit and instructions from the bank.
M/s Naya Nagar Developers Pvt. Ltd.
State Bank of India
Justice R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
