Special Assistant Appellant challenging District Magistrate order under SARFAESI Act. Tribunal found no perversity in possession order amidst NPA and admitted default. Appeal dismissed.
Special Assistant Number 20 of 2022 is dismissed.
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.
Before Arun Kumar Singal, Presiding Officer ` DRT - Ill, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
S.A. No. 20 of 2022
S.A. Instituted on 04.02.2022 Decided on 13.10.2022
Mita Rohit Pipalia
R/o, c/o A6, Dipti Naval Society,
Jijai Nagar, Gograswadi,
Dombivli-E, Thane-421 201.
Satra Plaza, 211 -
Plot No. 19 & 2
Palm Beac
Charli Misquitta
Chawl, Near High Way.
Rajendra Prasad Nagar,
Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400099 .
....Respondents
`,..i,.,r-
\3, \D 'xpl2-
1
Aroued Bv
P\dr. Sonappa K Nadrankar, counsel for Applicant. Mr. Pradeep Bhor, counsel for Respondent No. 1. M. Kiran Nikan, counsel for Respondent No. 2.
ORDER
t has been dt. 21.12.2021 under Sec. 14 of d and set aside and this Lened order of DM dt.
alleged that she and her husband i.e. ftyo.2arejointownerofthesuitpropertyand No. 2 borrowed the loan mortgaging Flat No. th Floor,Manasarovar Complex, Plot No. 1 to 6, & Sector 34, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410209 (hereinafter called as suit property).
\3+\c) ,2ro2~L
Respondent No. 2 did not obey the order
ate and so, Applicant had to file contempt
before the JMFC, Kalyan in January 2020
the Respondent No. 2.
J.."n
3
\3>``o,ap2~L
and Ld. JMFC, Kalyan has taken adverse opinion observing that once the DM, Raigad passed order on 21.12.2021 and directed Tehsildar, Panvel to take possession under the SARFAESI, the application for attachment of salary becomes infructuous
to be rejected, hence, Applicant had to file Section 31 and r/w Section 32 of the from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
for 18.01.2022.
pressurize restrained from
Action of DM, )n to harass and nt needs to be coercive steps.
vy
he Respondents and Respondent No. 1 mitting that there is an admission of the lpplicant and Respondent No. 2 took loan - on the terms and conditions mentioned in offer letter and Credit Facility was availed by the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 and Applicant is the coborrower and both Applicant and Respondent No. 2 executed loan security documents and agreed to repay the saidCreditFacilitywithinterest,costsandchargesetc.
J`` \3,\o ,2J2.i
deeds were still in possession of answering No.1.
cted to 11. Since the Applicant and Resp despite make the payment of the s 1pplicant and repeated renrinders th by Respondent Respondent No. 2 No. 1 issued demand No. 1 on 01.08.20 notice under Se RFAESI Act on 06.08.2019, and Respondent No. 2 to repay calling theo of Rs. 11,59,068/- but Applicant No. 2 failed to discharge liability, hence, 0. 1 initiated measures under Sec. 13(4) read 4 of the SARFASI Act and after filing application hon'ble District Magistrate, Raigad, Alibaug obtained order dt. 21.12.2021. In these premises, the Respondent No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of this Application.
\9 , lD ." 2~ i
•.`1"
5
property from his own funds Bank and he was paying t arly till 2019 but due to Covid-19 and h stances, he could not keep up the paymS d Applicant never hase of the suit property, paid even a whereas, she in the suit property.
No. 2, he was not able to pay the S;:ntehs:::S;Se]±]m;t:a:;:eiyd£:::eA£::i:abn;i:= of maintenance to Applicant and his son and r8ln8 his liability towards his parents who are senior citizen and amount spent on marriage of his real sister and Respondent No. 2 prayed for passing of appropriate order.
\z3 .\o +2ro 9,1
6
a(-
\ 3 /-\0 -. 2D 2_i
classified as NPA on 01.08.2019 and thereafter demand notice under Sec. 13(2) on 06.08.2019 but the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 failed to regularise their account and so, by filing Application before Ld. District Magistrate, Raigad Alibaug the order for possession was ained on 21.12.2021.
perversity in the order dt. 21.1 District Magistrate, Raigad
the measures i
ny prima facie case out any illegality in No. 1 in recovering
the outstandin
any merit in this S.A., so, S.A. No. 20 of snrissed ctL i-
P.O. DRT-III
8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Assistant's appeal against the DM's order directing possession has any merit.
Whether there is any illegality or perversity in the order passed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arun Kumar Singal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
