On appeal regarding a possession dispute and alleged procedural violation in a possession notice under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The court stayed dispossession and directed the respondents to file replies.
Status quo maintained regarding the property; parties directed to file replies by the next date of listing.
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: 27.04.2023
M/s Naya Nagar Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Present: Shri Shashank Pathak along with Shri Ankit Tiwari, counsels for the appellant, Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the respondent-Bank, Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the respondent-Auction Purchaser,
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 17.04.2023 of this Tribunal, whereby 3 days’ time was granted to the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank to obtain instruction, as to whether a part of the property in question has been taken in possession or the entire property and with regard to the actual dues payable by the appellant as well as the offer, which has been made by the appellant.
Reply has been filed by the respondent-bank to the waiver application after serving copy of the same upon the counsel for the appellant today in the court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that more than 50% of the amount due has already been deposited by the appellant and they are ready to deposit the entire amount within the specified time and if the dispossession takes place, the disabled persons living in the building will be adversely affected.
The learned counsel has referred to Annexure No. 1 of the paper book, which is possession notice dated 15.06.2019. It is contended that in second para of the said notice, it has been mentioned that the possession has been taken on
18.06.2019. It is further contended that if the possession notice was given on 15.06.2019, then how such averment could be mentioned that the possession has been taken on 18.06.2019. The learned counsel has next referred to page no. 98 and 99 of the paper book, which are publications of the said possession notice dated 25.06.2019 i.e. after 10 days, whereas the same is to be done within seven days as per Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is thus contended that the entire process of taking possession is bad in law.
Let the respondents file reply by the next date.
Till the next date of listing, the parties concerned are directed to maintain the status quo qua the property in question as it exists today.
List this case on 31.05.2023 for reply.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the possession notice dated 25.06.2019 was issued contrary to Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 due to a clerical error suggesting a later date.
Whether a stay order maintaining status quo regarding the disputed property can be issued pending consideration of objections.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Naya Nagar Developers Pvt. Ltd.
State Bank of India
Auction Purchaser
R. D. Khare
VN Giri
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
