Disposed

Shaista Shah v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

DRT22 Aug 2022SA/280/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special application regarding sale of a secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal directed the respondent bank to consider an offer from a prospective buyer for the private treaty sale of the property at Rs. 59.65 lacs, noting the amount exceeds the bank's valuation and under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules. The application was finally disposed.

What did the court decide?

The bank is directed to consider the prospective buyer's proposal for purchase of the property under private treaty.

Shaista Shah versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN TTM DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLTNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer

¶3

Date of order 22.8.2022

S.A. No. 280 of 2022

Sl. No. 91

Present:-

Ld.Counselfortheapplicant	Mr.SuneetKr.Sharma
Ld.Counselforthe resp.bank	Mr.S.M. Furquan
Ld.Counselforresp. no.2	Mr.AnandSrivastava

¶9

Counsel for the applicant stated that order u/s l4 of the Act had already been passed and there is apprehension of dispossession. He filed one application supported by affidavit for sale of the property under private treaty.

¶10

He stated that applicant is in possession of the property and has one prospective buyer who has offered to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 59.65 lacs.

¶11

The counsel for the respondent no.2 stated that S.A. is not maintainable. The mutation of the applicant in the record of Nagar Nigam was cancelled.

¶12

Counsel for respondent bank stated that bank had obtained valuation of Rs.59.61 lacs. The bank is concerned with the money and if the prospective buyer deposit the offered amount, the bank will consider his proposal for sale under private treaty.

¶13

Counsel for the applicant stated that the prospective buyer will deposit Rs. 20.00 lacs immediately and remaining amount within 90 days.

¶14

Counsel for the respondent no.2 stated that if the property will be put in public auction the same will fetch maximum price.

¶15

Heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The applicant had filed affidavit of prospective buyer Mr. Shah Alam S/o Haji Ameer Ahmad who intends to purchase the property at Rs. 59.65 lacs. As per Rule 8(5)(d) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2002 the authorized officer has power to sell the whole or any part of the immovable secured asset by the modes prescribed in the said Rules which includes "private treaty". In the instant case the amount offered by the prospective buyer is more than the value obtained by the bank and the bank is ready to consider the proposal of ,.\ the prospective buyer or any person for sale of the property under private (/ treaty. Accordingly, it is directed that the prospective buyer may approach to X

¶16

the bank along with his proposal for purchase of the property under^private Treaty and the bank is directed to consider the said proposal according to the provisions of the Rule 8(5Xd) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶17

/')

¶18

With the above observation, the S.A. is disposed of finally.

¶19

Let the file be consigned to record.

¶20

/_ { (A.fi.Ilhan) Presiding Officer

Shaista Shah v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaista Shah v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

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

M S Godavari Civil Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

M S Keep in Touch Clothing Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Mr Lalit Kumar Prajapati versus Art Housing Finance India Ltd.

M S Raja Tyre House versus the Nainital Bank Limited

M S Shiv Enterprises versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Chand Babu versus Canara Bank