Allowed

Sachin Kumar Ghadge v. Hdb Financial Services Limited and Ors.

DRAT1 Oct 2024MISC APPEAL/163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal set aside a non-speaking order dismissing an interim injunction application, remanded the matter to the lower court for a detailed examination of competing mortgage claims and contradictory title deeds, and held possession pending the fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.02.2024 set aside; matter remanded to DRT Pune for detailed examination and speaking order; possession put on hold.

Sachin Kumar Ghadge versus Hdb Financial Services Limited… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 648/2024(Stay)

¶2

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 163/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

Sachin Kumar Ghadge … Appellant/s

¶6

V/s.

¶7

HDB Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s Mr Rajesh Nagory along with Mr Vijay V.Chandavale and Mr Vishal S. Tambe, Advocate for Appellant.

¶8

Mr Padmakar Garad, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr Uma Fadia, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.

¶9

-: Order dated: 01/10/2024:-

¶10

The appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 27.02.2024 in I.A. No. 434 of 2024 in S.A. on Diary No. 445 of 2024 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune (D.R.T.) which was dismissed by the incharge D.R.T. at Nagpur, and hence, the appellant is aggrieved.

¶11

The facts of the case are slightly complicated. The appellant claims to be a bonafide purchaser of the subject property which was allegedly mortgaged by his predecessor-in-interest in favour of the Canara Bank by deposit of the original title deed. The appellant took finance from respondent No. 6 L & T Finance and the property was purchased by the appellant from the original mortgagor with the consent of the Canara Bank and the debt due to the Canara Bank was closed with the finance advanced to the appellant by the L & T Finance.

¶12

It is pointed out that the very same mortgagor who had allegedly mortgaged the property to the Canara Bank had also mortgaged the subject property to the first respondent and obtained the loan and the

¶13

¶14

first respondent claims to be in possession of the original title deed belonging to said mortgagor. It turns out that there are two sets of title deeds which the mortgagor has allegedly produced before the Canara Bank as also the first respondent. Therefore, there should be a finding at least prima facie as to which mortgage is prior in point of time and which is the real title deed which has been produced by the original owner of the property from whom the appellant had purchased the property. However, the Ld. P.O. has not gone into those contentions and has concluded that as the civil suit allegedly filed by the appellant has been dismissed, there is no prima facie case and therefore, the interlocutory application was dismissed on that ground.

¶15

Being a non-speaking order, it cannot be sustained, and is, therefore, set aside, and the matter is remanded to the D.R.T., Pune with a direction that I.A. No. 434 of 2024 shall be examined in detail and a speaking order passed after examining the documents available and produced by both sides. The original document available with the sixth respondent and the first respondent shall be produced for examination by the D.R.T.

¶16

Since the order has been set aside and the D.R.T. has asked to reexamine the application, the taking over of possession of the subject property by the first respondent shall be put on hold till a decision is taken by the D.R.T. on I.A. 434 of 2024. The application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a month of receipt of this order.

¶17

With these observations, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

Chairperson

mks-24

Sachin Kumar Ghadge v. Hdb Financial Services Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar Ghadge v. Hdb Financial Services Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd. versus Chandresh Jani

Agriculture Produce Market Commitee and Anr. versus Jalgaon Peoples Co. Op Bank Ltd.

Gulam Taj Faijulla Sheikh (Kadari) versus Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Mr Kishore J Janani versus The Federal Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Rahul Entrprises

Kamal Jagannath Jadhav versus Jm Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Limited