RameshwariDevi v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against rejection of interim relief regarding possession of mortgaged property. Appeals to maintain status quo for the interim period pending the final hearing date of the pending sale petition.
What did the court decide?
Maintenance of status quo of the property for 15 days or until the hearing date of 06.06.2023.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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. 696/2023 Date: 02.06.2023
Rameshwari Devi Vs. Canara Bank
Present : Shri K. Kartikeya, counsel for the appellant, Miss Bhavna, Law Officer of the respondent-Bank,
Since the possession of the property in question is likely to be taken by the bank on 02.06.2023, therefore, the urgency application was allowed subject to giving notice to the respondent-bank, which has been given to the law officer of the Bank, who is present personally.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the law officer of the bank.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the interim order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the DRT, Allahabad in I.A. No. 1758/2023, whereby the prayer of the appellant for grant of interim relief has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a third party and is neither borrower nor guarantor or mortgagor, whereas the property of the appellant has been mortgaged on account of fraud committed by the borrower and the Bank. In this regard, first information report was lodged and criminal prosecution was started and the borrowers are in jail. It is matter of the fact that after the property of the appellant was sold, the appellant filed the S.A. No. 210/2021 before the DRT, Allahabad challenging the entire sale proceedings. It is contended that the property in question is a residential property, in which the appellant resides.
It is further contended that due to false statement made by the respondent-bank before the DRT, Lucknow holding additional charge of the DRT, Allahabad, that a writ petition has been filed against the same cause of action, therefore, her application for grant of interim relief was rejected by the DRT vide order dated 17.11.2022. Against the said order, the appellant filed the Appeal Dy. No. 1050/2022 before this Appellate Tribunal, which was finally disposed off vide order dated 01.12.2022 with direction to the DRT, Allahabad to consider and decide the S.A. No. 210/2021 most expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the said order.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant interim protection to an appellant whose underlying sale petition remains subjudice pending the date of final hearing.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rameshwari Devi
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · June
- CNR
- 091090006962023
- Topic
- Specific Performance
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court