Allowed

Shri Vicky Madanmohan Gupta v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT7 Jan 2025MISC APPEAL/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant, a property purchaser, challenged a non-speaking interlocutory order dismissing his application for injunction against dispossession under SARFAESI. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, restored the application to file, and directed the trial court to pass a reasoned order. Court-mandated status quo during disposal of the application.

What did the court decide?

The dismissed interlocutory application (IA No. 1674 of 2023) was restored to the file, and the Presiding Officer is directed to pass a reasoned order on merits.

Shri Vicky Madanmohan Gupta versus Bank of Baroda — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 02/2025

¶3

Between

¶4

Vicky Madanmonhan Gupta … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Bank of Baroda & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Gaurang R. Kinkhabwala, i/b Mr M. G. Qubbawala, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Mr N. K. Fuladi, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Bank.

¶8

Mr Radhe Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

-: Order dated: 07/01/2025 :-

¶10

The appellant claims to be a third party who has allegedly purchased the subject property from the husband of the second respondent who is the borrower, on 19.09.2009 by way of a registered sale deed. He therefore wanted to get protection from being dispossessed from the property in consequence of an order passed by the District Magistrate under Sec. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI”, for short). He filed a Securitisation Application and an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1674 of 2023 seeking an injunction from being dispossessed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur(DRT).

¶11

The respondent appeared before the DRT and opposed the application. Apart from stating the rival pleadings in a very brief manner, the Ld. Presiding Officer disposed of this I.A. by a four-line

¶12

¶13

cryptic order stating that he did not find any merits in the application and that consideration based on the material that was placed, he dismissed the application. What was the material placed is not discussed. It is, therefore, an unreasonable non-speaking order. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and I.A. No. 1674 of 2023 is restored to the file. The Ld. Presiding Officer, is directed to go into the merits of the case based on the documents which have been produced, discuss what the case pleaded by the parties is and pass a reasoned order. Till an order is passed in the aforesaid I.A., the parties shall maintain the status quo in respect of the property. Interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶14

Sd/Chairperson

¶15

mks-20

¶16

Shri Vicky Madanmohan Gupta v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vicky Madanmohan Gupta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Gayatri Food Products versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

R a Brothers and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Alica Krafty Papers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

M/s. Crystal Solvent Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus Authorized Officer Nagpur Nagrik Sahkar Bank and Ors.

Amol G Mitra versus Bank of India

M/S. Gopinath Fashion and Anr. versus Canara Bank