Dismissed

J 71 Properties and Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Orbit Ventures Developers

DRT20 Oct 2023SA/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT dismissed the Securitisation Application as not maintainable and infructuous because the secured creditor had sold the mortgaged flats to a third party during the pendency of the application, and no challenges were filed to the sale or auction. No arguments were advanced regarding the specific reliefs sought.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No.108 of 2022 stands dismissed as not maintainable and infructuous with no order as to costs.

J 71 Properties and Pictures Pvt. Ltd. versus Orbit Ventures… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on : 07.04.2022 Registered on : 20.04.2022 Decided on : 20.10.2023 Duration : Y M D 01 06 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022

¶4

J-71 Properties and Pictures Pvt. Ltd., A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at B-104, Shiv Shivam, Oshiwara CHS, Off. New Link Roadm Oshiwara, Jogeshwari, Mumbai 400 102. Through Board of Director Mr Amarjeet J. Shukla

¶5

Mr Amarjeet Jitendra Shukla, Are: 37 years, Indian Inhabitant, Director of J-71, Properties and Pictures Pvt. Ltd., having office at B-104, Shiv Shiram Oshirwara CHS, Off. New Link Road, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari, Mumbai – 400102

¶6

… Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Orbit Ventures Developers, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Parntership Act, 1932, having its office at 2, Home Worth Apartment, Gulmohar Colony, 7^th Cross Road, JVPD Scheme, Juhu Mumbai – 400049

¶9

Mr Hiren Dhruv, Partner of Orbit Ventures Developers residing at 1201, Swarosk Building, 16, Pali

¶10

Page 1 of 5

¶11

Hill Road, Khar (W), Mumbai400052

¶12

Mr Hiren Dhruv, Partner of Orbit Ventures Developers residing at 1201, Swarosk Building, 16, Pali Hill Road, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400052

¶13

M/s Midcity Superstructures Pvt. Ltd., Private limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Link Corner Mall, Junction of 24^th and 33^rd Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050

¶14

Axis Bank Finance Ltd, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Axis House, ground floor, C-2, Wadia International Center, Pandurang Budhakar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400025 …Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant : Ms Fatima Lakdawala For Defendant no.5 : Mr Bhavesh Poojary i/b M/s. MDP & Partners For Defendant nos.1 to 4 None Shri Deepak M Thakkar Presiding Officer HEARING : 20^th October 2023. PRONOUNCEMENT : 20^th October 2023. J U D G M E N T

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

(1) The applicant filed the Securitisation Application for the following orders and reliefs:

¶19

(a) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare that to set aside quash and vacate SARFAESI action of the Respondents under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in respect of Flat Nos.3601 and 3602;

¶20

(b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to restore the possession back to the Applicants in respect of the suit property being Flat Nos.3601 and 3602;

¶21

(c) That the Respondents may kindly be directed status quo in the matter;

¶22

(d) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶23

(2) The matter was initially heard by the Tribunal and was reserved for judgment vide order-sheet dated 25^th May 2022. On 6^th September 2022, the Tribunal recorded that the judgment could not be pronounced and listed the matter for re-hearing. On 8^th September 2022, the applicant applied for urgent ad-interim relief by moving I.A. No.200 of 2022. By order dated 8^th September 2022, the Tribunal recorded the non-compliance of various

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

orders by the applicant. After that, the mater was transferred to DRT-1, Mumbai and later on retransferred to this DRT. On 13^th October 2023, the Tribunal asked the applicant’s counsel about the maintainability of the Securitisation Application. At the instance of the applicant’s counsel, the matter was adjournment onwards. Today, the secured creditor’s counsel has filed pursis (exhibit-19) stating that the secured assets has been sold on 17^th October 2022, issued the sale certificate and handed over the physical possession of Flat nos.3601 and 3602, situated at 36^th floor, Project known as Shikhar Tower 1/Shikhar A at Lokhandwala-Oshiwara, AndheriWest, Mumbai sold to Mrs Rakhi Sandeep Agarwal. It means that during the pendency of the Securitisation Application, the 5^th defendant (secured creditor) sold the mortgaged flat to Mrs Rakhi Sandeep Agarwal for the aggregate consideration of Rs.15.10 crores. The applicants failed to take any steps challenging the sale. Therefore, it has attained finality as the applicants have not accepted the sale favouring Mrs Rakhi Sandeep Agarwal. In the absence of the Auction Purchaser, the applicant is incorrect in pressing for the relief. Be that as it may, Ms

¶26

Page 4 of 5

¶27

Lakdawala advanced no arguments on the challenge to the 13(2) notice. Therefore, the question of granting any relief in terms of prayer clause VI(a) does not arise.

¶28

(3) As far as the relief in terms of prayer clause VI (b) is concerned, the 5^th defendant has handed over the physical possession to the auction purchaser. The action and measure of e-auction notice dated 6^th August 2022 has gone unchallenged. No arguments was advanced with regard to the prayer clause VI (b) and VI(c).

¶29

(4) Given the discussion above, hence, the following order:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(A) The Securitisation Application No.108 of 2022 stands dismissed as not maintainable and infructuous with no order as to costs.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶34

Nidhi

¶35

Page 5 of 5

J 71 Properties and Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Orbit Ventures Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J 71 Properties and Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Orbit Ventures Developers

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

Bank of India versus M/s Onega Consort Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/S Aman Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Roop Technology Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/s Ramlingraj Automobiles

Bank of India versus M/S Samuel Enterprises

Axis Bank versus Igl Industries Limited