The appellant sought to set aside Recovery Officer orders prohibiting his auction participation due to a date change. The Single Judge held the appeal was not maintainable as the appellant was not registered, showed no bona fides, and failed to assail the grievance with the Recovery Officer first. The appeal was declined.
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.
| 12/10/2023 | Ex. No. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in Appeal 18 of 2023 Manish Shah Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors |
Next date |
|---|---|---|
| Advocate Ms. Sanjana appeared for the Appellant. |
||
| Senior Advocate Mr. Nitin Thakkar a/w Gupta, Anuj Prakhar Mahipal appeared for the Respondent no.1 Advocate Mr. Dinesh Purandar Mr. Chaitanya Mehta, Sonali Aggarwal i/b Dhruv Liladhar & Co. appeared for the Respondent no.2. 1. By way of the present Appeal, the Appellant is seeking declaration of impugned orders dated 25/08/2023 read with order dated 11/09/2023 passed by the Learned Recovery Officer, Debt |
||
| Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai are void ab-initio, non-est, untenable in law and therefore may be set aside. 2. During the argument Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant was interested to purchase the property in question situated at Office No. 2001 |
and 2002, 20th Floor, Tower b, Peninsula Business Park, Lower Parel, Mumbai. (hereinafter referred to as “property in question”) however, since the Ld. Recovery Officer abruptly change the date of sale by issuing corrigendum therefore, Appellant could not participate in the said auction. Thus, he submits that present Appeal may be allowed and the orders dated 25/08/2023 and 11/09/2023 of Ld. Recovery Officer may be quashed and set aside. 3. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent no.1 objected on the maintainability of the present Appeal and stated that Appellant neither guarantor nor the auction purchaser and not deposited any amount in the impugned auction and also even not created any ID to participate in the auction, thus, Appellant is not entitled to challenge the auction in the present matter. He also raised various other objections on the present Appeal.
Sgj/-40
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal is maintainable against orders of the Recovery Officer when the appellant did not register for the auction and did not assail the grievance with the initial authority.
Manish Shah
Punjab National Bank
Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
