Smt Sangeeta Arora v. Bank of Baroda

Appeal Dy. No. 1026/2022 Date: 30.01.2023

Smt. Sangeeta Arora Vs. Bank of Baroda

Present: Shri Udai Chandani, counsel for the appellant,

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the urgency application being I.A. No. 74/2023.

It has been contended in the urgency application that the the property in question has been auctioned by means of sale notice dated 01.10.2022 in favour of the auction purchaser on 04.11.2022 and subsequently, the Recovery Officer has passed the order dated 04.01.2023 for taking physical possession of the said property. It is further contended that when the aforesaid fact came into the knowledge of the appellant, then he moved amendment application being I.A. no. 49/2023 as well as impleadment application being I.A. No. 48/2023 before this Tribunal on 12.01.2023. There is nothing on record to show that what happened pursuant to the order dated 04.01.2023 of the Recovery Officer and there is also nothing on record to show the subsequent action, which may indicate that the possession is likely to be taken.

In view of the above, there appears to be no urgency in the matter. Accordingly, the urgency application is rejected and the matter be listed on the date already fixed. In case any action is taken by the respondent-Bank for taking physical possession, the appellant is at liberty to move an application before the appropriate forum.

The reason shown in the impleadment application is sufficient, but the learned counsel for the appellant needs to explain as to how the order passed by the Recovery Officer under the DRC proceedings can be challenged in the present appeal preferred under the SARFAESI Act. After submission of the explanation by the next date, the impleadment and amendment applications shall again be considered at the time of considering the present appeal.