Disposed

Abdul Rehman Kadhar Basha v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT16 May 2025IA/284/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered rival claims regarding property titles. The Tribunal directed the Presiding Officer to dispose of the pending appeal on merits within three months while parties maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Presiding Officer DRT-III, Mumbai to dispose of M.A. No. 11/2021 on merits within three months; parties directed to maintain status quo.

Abdul Rehman Kadhar Basha versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MtJMBAI (SITTING AT -dHENNAl) LA. No. '284/2025. (Stay), In Misc. Appeal No. 54/2025 Dated; 16.05.2025 The matter is taken' up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the- Petitioner/.Appellant for seeking urgent relief. This Appeal is'fired under Section 20 of ROB Acts 1.993, along with Stay Application against the order passed by the Learned 'Rresiding. Officer, .DRT-1II, Mumbai,, in M.A. 11/2021 in OA .196/2011, on 20.02.2023, wherein the. Learned Presiding. Officer Vacated the status quo already granted. It is. the submission of Learned Counsel for .Petitioner/Appellant that by sale agreement dated ' 04.i0.2011; the Petitioner/Appellant became .entitled for the property, which the -l8t ■Respondent Bank .is inow hying ’to sell iii recovery, proceeding, in. pursuance, of /order passed in O.A. No. 19(5/2011. It is his further ■submission that, on the basis, of two sets’ of prigiiial documents, rival claims are made. Therefore, Learned Presiding Officer passed orders on 26.04.2022 and 28;04;2Q22, directing- the. parties to produce the original dd'cufhehtS; to determine the, .authenticity,. ' genuinity and veracity of the documents. There- was an

¶3

•»

¶4

order passed regarding the status quo which was granted by DRT-III, Mumbai, on 28.04.2022. However, on 20.02.2023, there is a finding bjf Learned Presiding Officer that the Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant sought for an adjournment, therefore, status quo order was vacated. In reply, 'the Learned Counsel for 1« Respondent Bank submitted that the claim made on the basis on sale agreement dated 04.10.2011, is not legal. The reason is that, the Respondent No.2 herein, who is the l»t Defendant in the O.A., executed equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, On 29.03.2006. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 therein, acknowledged the debt on 07.01.2010. Therefore, the Petitioner/Appellant cannot seek any rights over the property on the basis on sale agreement dated 04.10.2011.

¶5

Consider the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶6

In the light of the facts narrated above, it is seen that, there is a serious dispute with regard to original documen^on the basis of claim of parties. The Learned Presiding Officer directed the parties to produce the original documents to test the authenticity, gcnuinity and veracity of the documents. Though, initially, status quo was granted, the Learned Counsel for

¶7

JI i i'

¶8

Petitibher/Appellant was -not .ready to argue the case and sought for adjournment, and therefore, interim ordefr'was v'acated on 20;:02.-2023; In 'the light of the dispute involved in this case, this Tribunal is of the view that without disposal ofM.A. No/ 11/2Q2.1, the issues addressed by-the ^parties herein, cannot be decided. ' tn this view of the matter, this Tribunal directs the Learned, Presiding Officer, DRT-IIL Mumbai, to ^dispose of the. MA ,Nb. 11-/2021, on .merits, in .accordance with law; on the basis of evidence produced . by the. parties,, without, being influenced by any of the: observations-.made by'this Tribunal in this, order, as: ..expeditiously as 'possible, preferably: within three months from the .date, of receipt of copy of this' order. Meanwhile the. .parties are-directed to maintain the status-quo. DRAT, Mumbai to communicate this- order ^immediately., eHAlRRER^bNlVRAf ■ CHltNNAl (INrCHARGE, PRAT. MUMBAI PAM

¶9

I I

Abdul Rehman Kadhar Basha v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehman Kadhar Basha v. Bank of Baroda

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

Similar cases

Mrs Sabina Ajaz Ahmed Khan versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge versus Union Bank of India

Chem Impex Usha Private Limited and Others versus Sammaan Capital Limited and Anr.

Mr Vijay Vasant Prasade and Another versus India Infoline Home Finance Limited

Mukhtar Nizamoddin Shaikh versus Union Bank of India

Stone Yuug versus Bank of Baroda