Allowed

Deepak Mhatre v. Bank of India

DRAT18 Jun 2024REGULAR APPEAL/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of a securitisation application regarding the illegal forfeiture of the advance amount paid for property. The tribunal quashed the impugned order and directed the DRT to examine whether the bank's letter constituted a valid written extension of time under Rule 9.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is quashed and set aside; the DRT is directed to consider the matter afresh.

Deepak Mhatre versus Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Appeal No.02/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Deepak Mhatre

¶5

Bank of India …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Ismail Nasikwala, Advocate for Appellant .

¶7

Ms Amita Dutta, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶8

-: Order dated: 18/06/2024

¶9

This is an appeal impugning the order dated 18.01.2021 dismissing the Securitisation Application (S.A.) No.150 of 2019 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (D.R.T.) for the reason that the appellant has not made out any case to get the forfeiture of the 25% of the amount paid by him towards the sale price under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Rules) stalled.

¶10

Aggrieved by this, the appellant has come in appeal stating that the amount paid by him towards the bid amount was forfeited illegally and against the provisions of the Rules. It is stated that the authorised officer had sent a letter dated 22.11.2017 granting an extension of time to pay the balance 75% till 24.11.2017, and in violation of that, the amount was forfeited and the property was sold afresh. The appellant is aggrieved and has filed the S.A. questioning the act of forfeiture of the advance amount which is liable to be refunded.

¶11

¶12

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the appellant has not stated anything in the S.A. about the alleged extension of time granted to him by the authorised officer. The letter allegedly sent by the authorised officer was also not produced along with S.A. and is now produced at the appellate stage.

¶13

An oral undertaking granting an extension of time to deposit balance sale consideration is not acceptable under sub-rule 4 of Rule 9, as the rule specifically states that it must be made in writing between the parties to extend the time beyond 15 days. The letter allegedly received by the appellant has not been discussed in the impugned order. Neither was the scope of the extension under the rules discussed. Hence, an opportunity is to be granted to the appellant to contest the matter again on merits.

¶14

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside with a direction to the D.R.T. to consider the matter afresh considering sub-rule 4 and 5 of the Rules and to examine whether the letter dated 22.11.2017 allegedly issued by the bank would amount to an extension of time as contemplated under sub-rule 4 of Rule 9. The respondent bank is at liberty to raise all contentions challenging the argument advanced regarding the illegal forfeiture of the amount.

Sd/-

Chairperson

mks-19

Deepak Mhatre v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Mhatre v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maruti Polytex versus Union Bank of India

iNDIAN Bank versus M/s Siddhi Vinayak Logistics Ltd.

Mr Bipin Damji Shah and Others versus Smfg India Home Finance Company Limited

Royal Traders versus Assets Reconstruction Company India Limited

Royal Traders versus Assets Reconstruction Company of India Ltd.

M/s B J Grain and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda