The Single Member Tribunal disposed of an appellant's appeal challenging the illegal taking of physical possession by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. The court remanded the matter to the Tribunal below for fresh adjudication within four months.
The matter was remanded to the Tribunal below for fresh adjudication within four months.
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. 471/2024 Date: 03.10.2024
Meera Gautam Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. and 3 Ors.
Present: Shri Arif Iqbal, counsel for the appellant, Shri Sahil Srivastava, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2- F.I.,
Learned counsel for the appellant deposits a demand draft no. 502265 dated 01.10.2024 for Rs. 305/- towards pre-deposit, which is taken on record.
Let the aforesaid amount be deposited in the form of FDR in the Nationalized Bank for a period of one year in auto-renewal scheme.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of defective symbolic possession notice, the Bank has taken the possession, against which the application for interim relief filed before the Tribunal below has been rejected, against which the present appeal has been filed. It is further contended that the proceedings have been drawn on the ground of defective symbolic possession notice, hence taking over the physical possession of the property in question is bad in law. Learned counsel also submits that the said symbolic possession notice was issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the possession has been taken illegally pursuant to the illegal symbolic possession notice, therefore, the same may be returned back. Learned counsel further submits that since the matter is pending before the Tribunal below, therefore, the
matter may be remanded back for fresh adjudication. It is further contended that the symbolic possession notice, which has been filed as R.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 28.03.2024 is on printed proforma and thus the same is totally illegal.
Learned counsel for the respondent-F.I. contends that since the matter is still pending before the Tribunal below and the present appeal has been filed against the interim order, therefore, the matter may be finally decided by this Tribunal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-F.I. that bare reading of the possession notice, which is filed as R.A.-1, shows that the same has been issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
As prayed by the learned counsels for the parties, let the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal below for fresh adjudication of the matter, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the finding recorded in the order impugned, most expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
In view of the above, the present appeal is finally disposed off.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present appeal against the interim order should be decided finally or remanded to the Tribunal below for fresh adjudication.
Whether the taking over of physical possession based on a defective symbolic possession notice is valid in law.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Meera Gautam
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.
R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
