Sunil kr. Arora and Anr. v. Bank of Baroda and 2 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against the passing of interim order. Disputed facts raised regarding concealment of material fact, applicability of recovery certificate under OA No. 162/2020, and scope of challenge to auction proclamation. Court clarified that respondent must respond to these specific averments.
What did the court decide?
Respondent Bank and auction purchaser directed to respond to the averments before the case is listed for reply on 23.05.2023.
Appeal Dy. No. 283/2023 Date: 02.05.2023
Present: Shri Sahil Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri Udai Chandani, counsel for the appellant, Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the respondent-Bank, None for the respondent nos. 2 & 3,
Learned counsel for the respondent-bank states that by concealment of the material fact, the interim order has been obtained by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case. The learned counsel has referred to the page no. 248 of the appeal, which is a proclamation of the sale under rule 52(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 25 to 29 of the RDB Act 1993, and has argued that it pertains to the R.C. No. 281/2020 (O.A. No. 162/2020), whereby the recovery certificate dated 13.11.2020 in O.A. No. 162/2020 has been drawn up by the Tribunal below for recovery of Rs. 1,20,11,684.29 along with pendentelite and future interest, but the learned counsel for the appellant showing the total recovery of Rs. 45,43,231.27 and 25% amount of the same has been deposited as predeposit, has obtained the interim order in the present case.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that two O.As. were filed by the respondent-Bank and against the judgment passed in O.A. No. 162/2022, the Appeal Dy. No. 1026/2022 has been filed before this Tribunal, which is still pending. The aforesaid recovery certificate has been issued in the said O.A. and not in the O.A. under challenge in the present appeal. The present appeal does not pertain to the recovery certificate as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he has filed rejoinder to the aforesaid objection and further contends that he has only challenged a portion of the property in question
as there are two properties, one is residential and another is an open land. The learned counsel further submits that against the residential property, there is only recovery of Rs. 45.00 lacs approximately, 25% of which has already been deposited.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim order was obtained by concealment of material facts regarding the recovery certificate and predeposit.
Whether the present appeal pertains to the recovery certificate issued in a different O.A. No.
Whether the appellant challenged only a portion of the property as there are two distinct properties.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Shri Udai Chandani
- respondent
Shri Maneesh Mehrotra
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · May
- CNR
- 091090002832023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
14 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court