Sambhaji Balkrishna Sawant v. Uco Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal was appealed against dismissal of a stay application. The court found the petitioner not to be a bonafide claimant with permissible title. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,36,499 as a pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993, to facilitate the appeal.
What did the court decide?
Directed the Appellant to deposit Rs. 5,36,499 in two instalments by 02.07.2025 and 16.07.2025. Failure to do so will result in the rejection of the Misc. Appeal. Funds to be invested in a Nationalize
What the court decided
| Dated: 18.06.2025 This Appeal along with Stay Application'is filed challenging the ofdef passed in I.A. Nd. 222/ 2025 in Misd. Application-No. 14/2020. Wise. Application No. 14/2020 in Original Application (OA) No. 260/2008.was filed for the follodring reliefs. 1A. No. 302/2025 (Stay) in Misc. Appeal Nd. 22/2025 DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI ^tTTIN.G AT -CHENNAI) The matter is taken up for'hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by Petitioner/Appellant for seeking urgent relief. |
|---|
| .'1 *■6.1 That this Hoh'ble Tnbuhdl be pleased to cdti for records of the . Original Application No. 260 of '2008 and. after exdtninitig the legality 'and propriety thereof, to modify the Judgment and order dated ^ February, 2010 io the effed of; deleting Ute declqratiqn bf . mortgage in.respectcf Flat.No. 403-on Floor, Shree ’ Sai Frupa.CHSL^ M.G. Food, Kandiuali West, Mumbai 400 067 tn favour Of tlte Defendant No. T; |
| _6.2 That tins Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased, _'to pass an order and-restrain the Defendant^ No. J, its officers, _servants, agents, assigns, .successors _in office or any other person from tbking any further steps th respect _of said flat being Flat No.. 403 oh 4* Floor, _£hree Sai Krupa CFiSL, M.G. Road; Kandiuali West, Mumbai 4'00 dsTin any manner whatsoever;’’ |
| In the stud M.A. No. 14/2020, Pctitioner/Appeliant filed LA. No. 222/2025 'seeking stay of th"c proceedings. Learned Presiding Officer oh going through the records, found that 'Jlat no. 403 was purchased bi/ the applicant through notary and not by _the registered sale deed _which is -necessary in uieib of the _provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882°. _Since there was no transfer by registered sale deed) as per the, provisions of Transfer Of Property Act,. 1882, i.A. .NO. 222/2025 was dismissed. Against- |
| the said dismissal, this Appeal in Misc. Appeal No.22/2025 is filed. This Tribunal, on 19.02.2025, passed an order in stay |
|---|
| Application filed in the Appeal in I.A. No. 120/ 2025 dismissing the Application stating that Petitioncr/Appellant was not cautious enough to ensure that his title over the property was perfected. Petitioner/Appellant has not carried out mutation to the property. Petitioncr/Appellant, _prima fade, _has no tide and prirna fade case to defend his possession of documents. Thus, the stay Application was dismissed. Thereafter, the present LA. 302/2025 and IA 328/2025 |
| were filed seeking stay against taking possession. It is submitted |
| that I-A. No. 302/2025 has become infructuous. It is further |
| submitted that 1»‘ Respondent Bank will issue Possession Notice for taking possession of the property. He further submitted that on 09.04.2025, the owner of the property executed deed of confirmation, in pursuance of an unregistered sale deed and stamp paper, on 21.04.2005. Therefore, he prays for stay. Learned Counsel for 1“ Respondeht Bank opposes the stay |
| the Application the Appeal ground that and on |
| Petitioner/Appellant has absolutely no title to the property when That was the the proceeding was challenged before Tribunal. |
| reason why Learned Presiding Officer rightly refused to grant |
| stay. Even in the Appeal before this Tribunal, stay was refused. |
| Now, on the basis of deed of confirmation dated 09.04.2025, stay |
| of taking of possession is initiated, and that cannot be |
| entertained for the reason that Petitionef/Appellant is not a genuine claimant. Only with view to protract the proceedings and |
| to deny the amount determined in O,A. No. 260/2008, the Petitioncr/Appellant has initiated this proceeding. |
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a bonafide claimant entitled to file an appeal without making the required pre-deposit.
Whether the petitioner must deposit 40% of the determined amount in advance to entertain the appeal under Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993.
Whether the stay application should be allowed given the lack of title perfection and bonafide intent.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Petitioner/Appellant
- respondent
Respondent Bank
Coram
CHAINAP
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court