Vinod Khanna v. Bank of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal set aside an order dismissing the appellant's appeal under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the respondent bank held only a second charge over the mortgaged property due to fraud by the previous owner and the bank's inferior claim compared to the appellant's ownership.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissing the Special Appeal is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
IN DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
Appeal Dy. No. 589/2022
Vinod Khanna, Son of Kailash Narain Khanna, Shop No. 28, Darul Shafa, Gota Bazar, Chowk, Lucknow- 226003. ………......……………………...……………………………………………...Appellant
- Versus
- Authorized Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, 09/12, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow- 226022.
- Bank of Mahrashtra, Vidhan Sabha Marg Branch, Lucknow226001. Through its Branch Manager,
….…………………….…….………………………………………………….Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the appellant Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, Advocate For the respondent-Bank Ms. Shruti Malaviya, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Date of Decision: 16.05.2025
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal merely because no measures were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, ignoring the fraud and the status of the bank as a second charge holder.
Whether a bank can proceed against property mortgaged when it holds only a second charge over said property due to prior encumbrances and alleged fraud by the original owner.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in not appreciating its own interim finding that the mortgage documents produced by the bank were copies while the original title deeds were with the appellant.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Vinod Khanna
- respondent
Bank of Maharashtra
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · May
- CNR
- 091090005892022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
8 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court