Dismissed

Vasa Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

DRT3 Aug 2023SA/151/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Deemed Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an interim application seeking restraint on further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant was denied relief due to filing a false affidavit regarding property ownership and engaging in forum hunting tactics.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief sought by the applicant to restrain further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was denied and the application was dismissed.

Vasa Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

03/08/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in SA 151 of 2023* *Vasa Aluminium Pvt Ltd Vs Bank of Baroda*	Next date
		Advocate Kinkhabwala a/w Ms. Sonali Jain appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Dubey a/w Advocate Ms. Shradha Agrawal appeared for the Respondent. IA No. 2506/2023 and IA No. 2509/2023 1. By way of the present IA, the Applicant is praying to restrain from Respondent bank for taking further proceeding in respect of the Flat No. 303, 304, B-wing, 3rd floor, Borivali, Parijat CHSL, L.T. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai (hereinafter referred as “properties in question”). 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that there are various illegalities in the action taken by the Respondent Bank. He submits that in the affidavit filed before the Ld. CMM the officer of the Bank has
		given two dates of the NPA firstly,

¶2

30/06/2014 and other date of NPA is 30/10/2014, thus, he submits that further action of the Respondent may be set aside and Respondent may be directed to provide the clarification regarding the two dates of NPA.

¶3

He also submitted that facilities were time and again renewed and lastly it was renewed in 2013.

¶4

He also submits that admittedly shop no. “O”, New Jawahar Mansion, Dr Babasaheb Jaykar Marg, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai-400002, was already been sold in the year 2020 and sufficient amount of Rupees more than 1 Crore was received by the Respondent, however, the Respondent Bank illegally obtained the order from Ld. CMM for all the mortgage properties including the shop which was already been sold and also Court Receiver has issued the notice for taking possession of the shop which is already sold. Thus, the Respondent failed to provide all necessary information to the Ld. CMM and therefore on this

¶5

ground also the action of the Respondent may be set aside.

¶6

He also stated that as per provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Respondent Bank was required to register the mortgage but admittedly there is no registration with the CERSAI of the properties in question and thus the Respondent cannot be terms as secured creditor and consequently the Respondent Bank cannot take further action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, he prayed that present interim relief may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent objected to the present IA and submits that the Applicants themselves stated that the shop property has already been sold in the year 2020, however, in the present SA which is filed in July 2023 the address of the Applicant no.1 has been provided of the said shop only and thus he submits that Applicants gave a false affidavit before this Tribunal and therefore Applicants are not entitled for any relief. He also submits that the

¶7

Applicants in the authority letter issued
by the board resolution of the company,
provided different addresses of the
company Applicant no.1 but in the SA they provided addresses of the Property, which was already sold in the year 2020.
7. He also stated that at the time of sale of
the said shop property, Applicants not
only acknowledged the debts and also
admitted the notices under the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, and also admitted
the sale of the shop property. Thus, he
submits that once Applicants have
acknowledged all the SARFAESI
measures therefore, the Applicant is
debarred to raise any objection on the
SARFAESI measures of the Respondent
Bank. Thus, he submits that present IA
may be dismissed.
8. Considered the rival submission of the parties and gone through the record.
9. Admittedly the shop property which was mortgaged in the impugned account, was
already sold vide sale certificate dated
24/09/2020 and the Applicants have
accepted the said sale, however, despite

¶8

having knowledge that shop property was already been sold in the year 2020, the Applicants in the SA which is filed on 31/07/2023, has falsely mentioned on affidavit the shop property as the address of Applicant no.1. In catena of judgments Hon’ble Supreme Court took strong actions on the false affidavits. In M. Veerabhadra Rao Vs. Tek Chand 1984(Supp) SCC 571, Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the allotment of plot on the basis of false affidavit. Therefore, as rightly stated by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank that the Applicants are not entitled for any relief due to the false affidavit furnished by them in the SA. 10. Further, in so far as objections pertaining to the NPA and demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is concerned admittedly, Applicants has already received all the documents in the year 2020, at the time of sale of shop property however, the Applicants did not raised any objection at that point of time and also they themselves accepted the sale of the shop property thus, now the

¶9

Applicants are not entitled to raise these objections. 11. Admittedly, the Applicants have already filed a SA with the DRT-II, Mumbai, thus, the present challenge before this Tribunal is only a forum hunting tactics of the Applicants. 12. In view of the above, prima-facie I do not find any merit in the present IA and hence the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. P.O. DRT-I

¶10

Sgj/-26

Vasa Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasa Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Developers versus State Bank of India

Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited versus Jechand Vora

Union Bank of India versus M/S Coconut Grove Beach Resorts (Goa )Private Limited

Nishta Mall Management Company Private Ltd. versus Ifcl Limited

Dhartidhan Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank

Zeal Logistic India Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited