Royal Trinity Maritime Enterprises versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

Royal Trinity Maritime Enterprises versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

IA No. 3296/2023 In SA 218 of 2023

22/11/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. IA No. 3296/2023 in *SA 218 of 2023* *Royal Trinity Maritime Enterprises Vs Indian* *Bank*	Next date
		Advocate appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Fatima Lakdawala appeared for the Respondent. IA No. 3296/2023 1. By way of the present IA the Applicant is praying to restrain the Respondent for auction dated 22/11/2023 of the property Flat No. 004, Ground Floor, Building known as Kadvekar Apartment CHSL
		situated at opposite IIT Main Gate, Powai, Mumbai - 400076 (hereinafter referred as “property in question”) and other relief. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant contends that there are multiple demand notices issued in the present matter. He also submits that the Respondent themselves is not clear what is the date of demand
		notice. Further he contends that
		Respondent not even issued any

1

IA No. 3296/2023 In SA 218 of 2023

corrigendum for the mistake of demand notice. Therefore, he submits that the demand notice u/S 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, in the impugned account is liable to be quashed. 3. He also contends that the Applicant failed to give 15 days prior auction notice and thereby violated the rules and provisions as contemplated in Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Thus, he submits that Respondent may be restrained from proceeding in the auction dated 22/11/2023. 4. In support of his contentions Ld. Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of The Pioneer Mooters (Private) Ltd. Vs The Municipal Council and judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in P. Magudeeswaran Vs Authorized Officer. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent objected to the present IA and submits that Applicant at the very last moment filed the present SA as well as IA and the same

2

IA No. 3296/2023 In SA 218 of 2023

was served the upon Respondent yesterday only. Therefore, she submits sufficient time may be allowed to the Respondent for filing a reply. She also submits that demand notice u/S 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued in accordance with the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made therein. She submits that she will produce relevant documents along with the reply. 6. She further submits that the 15 days auction notice was duly served upon the Applicant. She also informed that this is the 3rd auction and the Respondent could not receive any bid in the last two auctions. However, this time Respondent received a bid in the auction. Thus, she submits there is no merit in the present IA and the same may be rejected. 7. Considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the record. 8. Insofar as first objection of the Applicant pertaining to the demand notice u/S 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, is concerned, the same will be decided after the reply

3

IA No. 3296/2023 In SA 218 of 2023

and documents produced by the Respondent Bank. 9. As far as objection to the 15 days prior auction notice is concerned, record reveals that the auction notice was issued on 04/11/2023 and same was dispatched on 06/11/2023 to the Applicant herein and auction is fixed on 22/11/2023. Thus, there is a 17 day gap between the date of despatch and the date of auction. As per proviso to Rule 9 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the authorized officer shall serve the auction notice of sale not less than 15 days for any subsequent sale. Therefore as rightly stated by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the impugned sale is in accordance with the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder. 10. The judgments relied upon by the Applicant are concerned, this Tribunal after calculating the date has come to the conclusion that 15 days prior notice is served the duly upon Applicant, therefore, these are not applicable in the present matter.

4

IA No. 3296/2023 In SA 218 of 2023

Tjs/-6

In view of above I do not find merit in the present IA and hence the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. P.O. DRT-I

5