Allowed

Bhanji Bhoiraj Nisar v. Indian Bank

DRAT21 Feb 2023REGULAR APPEAL/14/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon restoring an appeal dismissed for default, the Tribunal allowed an application to reinstate a status-quo order regarding three unsold secured properties, preventing their auction pending disposal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The interlocutory order granting status-quo regarding three unsold properties is restored; the properties shall not be put up for auction until further orders.

Bhanji Bhoiraj Nisar versus Indian Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 106/2023 In Appeal No. 14/2019

¶2

Between

¶3

Bhanji S/o Bhoiraj Nisar … Appellant/s V/s. Allahabad Bank …Respondent/s

¶4

Ms Megha Bajoria, i/b Mr Mandar Goswami, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Bhavesh Poojary, i/b M/s. MDP & Partners, Advocate for Respondent.

¶5

-: Order dated: 21/02/2023:-

¶6

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed by the Appellant seeking urgent relief. I.A. No. 106/2023 is an application filed for restoration of physical possession of the properties which have not yet been sold and to direct the Respondent Bank to maintain status-quo of the property till disposal of the appeal.

¶7

It is pertinent to note that the appeal was entertained by this Tribunal on compliance with the direction to make a pre-deposit of ₹85,00,000/- vide order dated 29.01.2019. The said amount has been deposited and still lying in the deposit. There was also a direction to maintain status-qua with regarding SARFAESI measures initiated by the Respondent Bank as against six items of secured assets.

¶8

However, thereafter, the Appellant remain absent and on 15.09.2022 the appeal was dismissed for default of non-appearance

¶9

¶10

and also for the reason that the Appellant failed to amend the cause title pertaining to the first Respondent Allahabad Bank which had since merged with the Indian Bank. The Appellant filed M.A. No. 61/2022 to get the appeal restored and on payment of cost the application was allowed and the appeal was restored to file.

¶11

In this application the Appellant wants the order of status-quo to be restored but in the interregnum period, out of the six items of properties which were the secured assets three were already sold and a sum of ₹ 1.60 crores realized towards the debt. The Appellant does not intend to challenge those auction sales. There are three more items of properties which yet to be sold. It has been taken possession of and the auction is created to take place on 28.02.2023.

¶12

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the original order of the status quo as regards these three items of properties may be restored in view of the restoration of the suit. The Ld. Counsel released on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vareed Jacob Vs Sosamma Geevarghese and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2634/2004 in which by way of a majority decision, it was held that on the restoration of suits which were dismissed for default, the interim orders will also stand restored. The Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent Bank submitted that even after the realization of the entire amount by way of the auction of three properties, there is still an outstanding sum of ₹ 2.7 Crores due from the Appellant and therefore no interlocutory order restraining the Respondent from selling the remaining assets to be made.

¶13

After having heard the rival contentions raised by the other side

¶14

¶15

I find, that the Appellant has already deposited a sum ₹ 85,00,000/and the sum of ₹ 1.6 crores has been realized by the sale of three items of property which are not yet challenged by the Appellant and therefore, a substantial amount has been realised towards the debt due to the Respondent Bank.

¶16

The appeal is of the year 2019 and the pleadings are complete therefore, the interlocutory order granted with regard to three items of property which are not yet sold shall be restored and the properties shall not be put up for auction until further orders. I.A. No. 106/2023 is allowed.

¶17

Post on 27.04.2023 for hearing the Appeal.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

rm-2

¶20

Bhanji Bhoiraj Nisar v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanji Bhoiraj Nisar v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mrs. Rashmi Rajesh Rajguru versus Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Sarvon Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Shashikant & Co.

Manojkumar Sureshchand Lunkad and Ors. versus Punjab National Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mrs Sadhana Bharat Rai

Mrs Sadhana Bharat Rai versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited