Disposed

Rahul Belwalkar v. State Bank of India

DRT18 Oct 2022MA/42/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal granted an interim stay on the commencement of an e-auction due to alleged lack of thirty days' notice. Subsequently, upon the defendant's withdrawal of the auction and restoration of possession, the main miscellaneous application was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim stay on e-auction granted; application eventually disposed of after respondent withdrew auction notice.

Rahul Belwalkar versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.910

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.2397 of 2022 In MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.42 of 2022

¶5

Mr Rahul Belwalkar and Ors. … Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Bank of India & Ors. … Defendants

¶8

Mr Charles De Souza i/b M/s. Meraki Chambers – Advocates for the applicants.

¶9

Mr Frazer Alexander i/b M/s. H & M Legal Asso. – Advocates for defendant no.1.

¶10

Ms Priyanka Sugdare i/b Ms Priti Shinde – Advocate for defendant no.2.

¶11

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 18^th October 2022

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The applicants feel aggrieved by the 1^st defendant’s action and measures of announcing the sale vide notice dated 8^th September 2022 and scheduled the e-auction on 11^th October 2022. After that, 1^st defendant issued another sale notice dated 23^rd September 2022 stating that it supersedes all previous sale notices. The authorized officer announced the e-auction scheduled today between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Admittedly, it is the 1^st e-auction conducted by the authorized officer. Mr De Souza is right in his submission that the authorized officer failed to give thirty days’ notice and therefore, the applicants are entitled for an ad-interim relief in this regard.

¶14

Be that as it may, Mr De Souza challenged the 13(2) notice, which

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

he calls it defective. He would submit that the 1^st applicant was the CEO who disassociated from 2^nd defendant company (principal borrower). He drew the Tribunal’s attention to the averments in paragraph 5.2 (e), (f), (h) and (i) to the Securitisation Application. He submits that 1^st defendant, though claims to have taken the symbolic possession on 23^rd May 2022, no service is effected upon the applicants. He drew the Tribunal’s attention to the reply affidavit filed by 1^st defendant which does not even whisper about the service of possession intimation.

¶17

It prima facie appears that the 13(2) notice dated 12^th January 2022 is for a composite amount of Rs.20.24 crores without giving any breakup or bifurcation. At page 31 of the compilation, it shows the outstanding inclusive of interest as of 28^th December 2021. The law laid down in paragraph nos.28 to 30, 40 and 41 in Punjab National Bank Versus Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd., MANU/GJ/1069/2020 is very clear. If the 1^st defendant is not prohibited, the applicants’ right is likely to be prejudiced. The balance of convenience lies favouring the applicants.

¶18

Given the discussion above, the Tribunal is inclined to protect the applicants’ interest. Hence, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause 6(a) and (b).

¶19

Later on, Mr Alexander mentioned the matter stating that 1^st defendant is withdrawing the 13(2) notice as well as the ongoing auction. Mr Alexander would further submits that the symbolic possession taken on 23^rd May 2022 shall be restored within two weeks from today. The statement made by Mr Alexander is accepted and shall operate as an order of this Tribunal.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, D.R.T.No.2, Mumbai

¶22

Dhawale

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶25

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

18.10.2022

Sr. No.910

classifi- cation	No. of Exh.	MA No.42 of 2022 Mr Rahul Belwalkar and Ors. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
		Mr Charles De Souza i/b M/s. Meraki Chambers – Advocates for the applicants. Mr Frazer Alexander i/b M/s. H & M Legal Asso. – Advocates for defendant no.1. Ms Priyanka Sugdare i/b Ms Priti Shinde – Advocate for defendant no.2.
		1. Order in Interlocutory Application No.2397 of 2022 passed separately. 2. All the issues between the parties concerning the symbolic possession is kept open. 3. Parties to appear before the learned Registrar, stand- over to 3^rdNovember, 2022. Sd/- Presiding Officer, D.R.T.No.2, Mumbai Later on- 4. In view of the withdrawal of the action and measures under the SARFAESI Act, Securitisation Application
		in its present form does not survive. Therefore,
		Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2022 stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Sd/- Presiding Officer, D.R.T.No.2, Mumbai

¶30

Dhawale

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Rahul Belwalkar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Belwalkar v. State Bank of India

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s Omkar Marketing Co.

Bank of India versus M/s. Chintan Incorporation

Bank of India versus Jjeetu

Techno Cart Engineers versus the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited

Seya Industries Limited versus Karur Vysya Bank

Union Bank of India versus Shreenath Enterprises