Disposed

Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank v. Mr Nitinkumar and Ors.

DRAT28 Aug 2023REGULAR APPEAL/61/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank appealed against a DR&T order quashing SARFAESI measures. The secured asset was sold and possession handed over. The appellate court stayed the execution of the order regarding restoration of possession pending disposal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the implementation of the DR&T order regarding restoration of possession pending disposal of the appeal.

Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank versus Mr Nitinkumar and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Appeal No. 61/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank … Appellant/s V/s. Nitinkumar S/o Dhanraj Lalwani & Ors …Respondent/s Mr. Kushal Sawant, i/b Mr. Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Vishal S. Tambe, i/b Mr. Vijay Chandavale, Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶5

-: Order dated: 28/08/2023:-

¶6

The Creditor bank is in appeal impugning the judgment and order dated 24.08.2010 in Securitization Application (S.A.) No. 31/2006 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T.) wherein the Sarfaesi measures were found to be not in accordance with the Act and accordingly the S.A. was allowed and the entire Sarfaesi measures quashed.

¶7

The secured asset was in consequence of the Sarfaesi measures already sold to the 3^rd Respondent intervener and possession also has been handed over to him. The sale certificate is registered and mutation is also carried out.

¶8

The impugned order states that the S.A. is allowed but it does not state anything regarding the setting aside sale. Nor is anything regarding the re-delivery of the property u/s 17 (3) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”

¶9

¶10

for short) mentioned. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has pointed out in the memorandum of appeal that there is an interim relief sought to stall the operation of the impugned order. 4. There is no order for setting aside the sale and restoration of possession of the property. It is submitted that the borrower has already moved the D.R.T. by filing the M.A. No. 02/2022 for restoration of the property. The Respondents did not appear in this appeal despite being served with summons. The application for condonation of delay was allowed prior to the appeal being taken on file which was also not contested by them.

¶11

Under the circumstances, I find that the implementation of the impugned order dated 24.08.2010 with regard to the restoration of possession of the property has to be stalled till the appeal is disposed of. The operation of the impugned order is stayed till further orders. With these observations, the appeal shall posted for hearing on 03.11.2023

¶12

Sd/Chairperson

¶13

psa-20

¶14

Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank v. Mr Nitinkumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank v. Mr Nitinkumar 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

Bank of Baroda versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Karnavati Resorts Limited versus Central Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Murphy Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Rare Asset Reconstruction Ltd. versus Official Liquidator of Polo Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs. Gita Navnath Lambhade and Anr. versus A.O. L & T Housing Finance Ltd. & Others

Indusind Bank Ltd. versus Sales Tax Officer & Ors.