Appellants sought protection from enforcement measures pending SARFAESI appeal despite guarantor's full pre-deposit. Court deferred hearing due to auction purchaser's request, extending interim protection granted by High Court till next date.
Direction for the High Court order of protection to remain operative till the next hearing date fixed on 24.01.2024.
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.
Camp Court at Bhopal
Appeal Dy. No. 1196/2023 Date: 04.12.2023
M/s Krishnan Trading & others Vs. Union Bank of India & others
Present: Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, counsel for the appellants, None for the respondent-Bank,
Shri Shivam Darwai, counsel for the respondent-Auction Purchaser,
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per section 2(f) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the borrower includes the guarantor, who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or financial institution. As such the guarantor comes under the definition of the borrower. In the present case, the guarantor has purchased the property in auction and has deposited entire sale proceeds with the Bank, which is more than the amount due. It is thus contended that as on date, no dues are pending against the borrower-firm, therefore, no further amount is required to be deposited by the appellants towards pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No. 3300/2023, by which the Hon’ble High Court has granted the protection of 30 days to the appellants for approaching this Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the auction purchaser/guarantor is demolishing the unit by unit, therefore, some interim protection may be granted in the meantime so that the interest of the appellants may not be adversely affected.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-auction purchaser states that the arguing counsel Shri Sandeep Arora could not come and appear before this Tribunal at its Camp Court due to some personal problem, therefore, he prays that the matter may be adjourned and fixed at Allahabad, on which date he shall argue the case.
Considering the submissions made by the parties and the fact that the auction purchaser has made prayer for deferring the matter today, as it is also alleged on behalf of the appellants that demolition of the property is being made by the auction purchaser, I deem it just and proper that the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court may remain operative till the next date. Ordered accordingly.
List this case on the date already fixed i.e. 24.01.2024.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
M/s Krishnan Trading & others
Union Bank of India & others
Auction Purchaser
R. D. Khare
VN Giri
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
