Appeal against interim order denying stay in a suit to quash a possession notice. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal held there was no material showing bank-consented tenancy directed disposal of main appeal.
Main suit to be disposed of expeditiously; appeals closed.
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.
| ( DEBT' RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAl (SITTING AT -CHENNAI) Dated 1 l^of July, 2025 |
|---|
| PRESENT: Hoii’ble Mn ..Justice G. Chandrasekharaii CHAIRPERSON |
| Misc. Appeal No 19/2025* (I.A. Nd- 104/2025 in S.A; No;:266Z2024 before DRT, Nagpur) |
| .Between- |
| ....Appellant And. ::Ma^r^^esh-'PUrswariit, . A-ged afeut 35 years, ;Occ. Business, :B/b.‘yajnWithdhainf ls.{;Floor Dakshinamurty- Chowk- Wear-Bihzani College, Nagpur-32 ' H£0; Vijay-&PayapMenghani. |
| '1,; 'Centra]/Bank:.of India, _ L Through :;its -Authorised Officeff. . Regional J Office at LlO Square; Na^ |
| 2. Shri Vijay PessumalMenghani,. |
| ...Respondents 3. Payal:Vijay.Menghanii Both .atr M/S. yijdy Kafigari Stores, Kelibagh.Road Mahal, 440032. |
| ! ; .MfKMid-Arisari. : Ms/fejdsin D. Dcdvi. 'Mr. Radhe H. A^rawal: .'^bunseifor Appelidfits C^el^R^spondentiNo.d- _■Counseffor- Respondent-No: -.2 _& 3 |
1
jW’i-
ORDER
This Appeal is filed against an interim order passed on 24.01,2025 in I.A. No. 104/2025 in S.A. No. 266/2024 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur, refusing to grant stay of proceedings;
SA 266/2024 was filed by the Petitioner/Appellant to quash the Possession Notice dated 25.07.2024 on the ground that the Petitipner/Appellant is a registered tenant in respect of the property mortgaged. When the 1st Respondent Bank tried to take possession, he filed the aforesaid SA along with said Application in IA .No. 104/2025. Oh dismissal of the said Application, this Appeal is filed.
It is seen from the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur that there is no material produced to show that a registered tenancy was created between the Petitioner/Appellant arid borrowers, who are the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, with the knowledge and consent of 1st Respondent Bank. It is possible that the borrowers deliberately with intention to delay the process of taking of possession might have created the document and then registered the tenancy without the knowledge and consent of 1st Respondent Bank.
As this Appeal is only against an interim order, this Tribunal.directs Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur, to dispose of the main SA on
2
metitsj.;in.:aecprd'a#i'cei with law, as expeditiously as' possible, without'being
influenced: by any of the observations made, in this Appeal.
In view ^of the' above' observations, Misc. Appeal No.- 19/2025 is
•disposed Oh, fto ordet as; to costs.. All pending lAs, if;any, .stand closed.
({Dictated to Athistamanii PS, in open court, tiaiiscribed by her, corrected’ and isigfied by me this TVhaf.July, .2025)
iWm [Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON- DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, MUMBAI)'
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim order denying stay of proceedings in the suit to quash possession notice should be set aside.
Whether there is material to prove a registered tenancy was created with the bank's consent to delay possession.
Raj With Vishnu Ish.
Central Bank of India
Shri Vijay P. Menghani
Payal Vijay Menghani
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
