M/S Escape Life Care Private Limited and Ors. v. Union Bank of India and Ors.

DRAT12 Dec 2023REGULAR APPEAL/240/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate tribunal adjourned a regular appeal challenging an auction sale on procedural grounds, including violations of notice periods and deposition rules under the Rules, 2002. The hearing was diluted due to fresh arguments raised regarding a subsequent notice not previously challenged. No decision was delivered on the merits.

What did the court decide?

null

M/S Escape Life Care Private Limited and Ors. versus Union… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

Regular Appeal No. 240/2016 Date: 12.12.2023

¶2

M/s Escape Life Care Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors.

¶3

Present: Shri Rajneesh Kesharwani, counsel for the appellant, Shri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, counsel for the respondent-Bank,

¶4

Heard the learned counsels for the parties in part.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the auction sale was conducted on 27.03.2014 pursuant to the sale notice dated 25.02.2014, which was published on 26.02.2014, therefore, the sale was conducted on 30^th day, which is in violation Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2002. The learned counsel further submits that the sale amount was deposited by auction purchaser after 15 days which is against the provision of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2002. Further, the sale notice under Rule 8(6) was not pasted at the conspicuous part of the property in question, which is also against the provision of the Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that although the prayer, which was made before the Tribunal below in S.A. No. 401/2013 was against the sale notice, which was not materialized, but after the auction sale, impleadment application and amendment application were filed and the same were allowed by the Tribunal below, therefore, the entire process with regard to auction sale was under challenge before the Tribunal below.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the relief sought by the appellant before the Tribunal below was against the sale notice, which was not materialized, but the subsequent sale notice dated 25.02.2014, pursuant to which

¶8

the property was auctioned, was not the impugned before the Tribunal below, therefore, no relief against the said notice can be claimed. It is further submitted that whatever has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant was never argued before the Tribunal below, therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to argue the same directly before this Tribunal.

¶9

As jointly prayed, list this case for further arguments on 23.02.2024.

¶10

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶11

VN Giri

M/S Escape Life Care Private Limited and Ors. v. Union Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Escape Life Care Private Limited and Ors. v. Union Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aditya Swaroop Pandey versus Aryavart Bank

M s Mahadev Traders and Others versus Union Bank of India

Mahendra Singh Tomar versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited and 4 Ors.

Deen Dayal Sharma and Another versus Indian Bank

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Others versus M/S Sparkling Sun Real Estate Indore Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari versus Bank of Baroda and Anr.