The Single Bench of NATS (CET) admitted the appeal, noted service of the caveat, and addressed discrepancies between the mortgaged property and the demand notice. The court granted interim relief by staying the impugned order.
The effect and operation of the impugned order is stayed till the next date.
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. 126/2023 Date: 28.02.2023
Union Bank of India Vs. Deserve Builders and Developers Ltd. Present: Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the appellant,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the caveator has already been served with copy of appeal.
Issue notice to the remaining 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.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the annexure no. 3 of the paper book, which is a notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act (at page no. 24) and has stated that the said notice shows that the same was sent to the appellant through post and copy of postal receipt is on record. The said notice was issued pertaining to two commercial properties bearing no. 608, 609, 6th Floor, Salimar, Titanium, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow owned by M/s Deserve Builders and Developers Ltd. having area 386 sq. meter and bearing no. 128-G, Ground Floor, a Novroji Hill, Mumbai owned by Mr. Deepak Sharda having area 3840 sq. feet. The learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court to the mortgage deed, which is appended as annexure no. 6 of the paper book and has referred to page no. 203 of the paper book, which is description of the property, which was mortgaged and according to the said mortgage deed, the property mortgaged was bearing plot no. 11/GH-7, measuring 11944.34 sq. feet situated at Vrindavan Yojana-3, Lucknow.
The learned counsel has also referred to para 10 of the order impugned and has argued that the property, which was held to have not been mortgaged with the Bank, is 11/GH-7, but the said property has not been mentioned in the demand notice dated 27.01.2020. In the last, it is argued that the learned Presiding Officer has erred in holding that the demand notice dated 27.01.2020 issued by the Bank is defective and the Bank has no security interest in their favour in respect of the said property. Hence, the interest of the appellant may be protected.
It appears that there is some arguable points in the present case, therefore, it would be appropriate to grant the interim relief in favour of the appellant. Hence, the effect and operation of the order impugned is stayed till the next date.
List this case on 22.05.2023 for service.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interim relief should be granted given arguable points in the appeal regarding the defectiveness of the Section 13(2) demand notice and the mortgaged property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union Bank of India
Deserve Builders and Developers Ltd.
Justice 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
