Sandeep Bhatia v. Dena Bank and 2 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Issue notice to respondents via Registered Post and Speed Post. Require appellant to file service proof and take steps within a week. List case for service on 07.08.2023.
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. 441/2019 Date: 10.05.2023
Present: Shri Ashutosh Sharma, counsel for the appellant, None for the respondents,
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the present matter, the loan agreement was executed on 20.09.2005, but the sale deed of the agricultural land, which was secured asset, was executed on 24.09.2005 i.e. subsequent to the loan agreement, which is not possible. It is, thus, argued that the mortgaged deed, which was allegedly mortgaged, is also bad in law.
It is further argued that the appellant’s agricultural land is still vacant and no loan whatsoever was advanced by the respondent-bank to the appellant, therefore, the appellant does not come within the definition of the borrower as defined under section 2(f) of the RDB Act. It is lastly contended that as the notices under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act have been set aside by the Tribunal below, therefore, the amount due cannot be ascertained.
Issue notice to the respondents by two modes i.e. Registered Post with A.D. and Speed Post. Steps to be taken by the appellant within a week. Affidavit of service along with tracking report be filed by the next date.
List this case on 07.08.2023 for service.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant qualifies as a borrower under Section 2(f) of the RDB Act when no loan was advanced and the mortgaged asset deed predates the loan agreement.
Whether the amount due can be ascertained since the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were set aside by the Tribunal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Appellant
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · May
- CNR
- 091090004412019
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court