The intermediary application seeking restraint on possession by the respondent bank against the applicant was dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal as the applicant failed to produce registered sale documents, relying instead on payment receipts and a non-registered application.
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.
IA No. 3443/2023 In SA 238 of 2023
| 20/12/2023 | Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. IA No. 3443/2023 in SA 238 of 2023 Abdul Kayum Tamboli And Others Vs Bank of India |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate Amita C. appeared for the Applicant. Advocate appeared for the Respondent. Today the matter is listed for orders onIA No. 3443/2023 1. During the hearing Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has drawn my attention on various documents which are in the favour of the Applicant herein and that too pertain to the year 2011. 2. She submitted that the mortgage was created in the impugned account in the year 2014, thus, she submits that the purchase of properties in question is much prior to the mortgage created by the Respondent Bank. She submits the present IA may be allowed and the Respondent may be restrained from taking possession of the property in question. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent strongly objected to the present Interim Application and submits |
1
IA No. 3443/2023 In SA 238 of 2023
that the Applicant is claiming rights on 2 i.e. flats 410 and 510, situated at IQRA Heights, bearing CTS No. 1449 to 1510 village, Kole Kalyan, Masjid Road, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai. 4. However, the possession of the Flat No. 410 has already been taken 15 days back i.e. on 29/11/2023 and further he submits that both the flats are vacant premises. He also drawn my attention to the property documents of the Applicant and contends neither of the documents are registered document and further the Applicant is claiming their right fully on the basis of payment receipt. Whereas the mortgage of the Bank is a registered mortgage thus, he submits there is no merit in the preset IA and same may be dismissed. 5. Considered the contention of the parties and gone through the record. 6. Admittedly, Applicant has produced the documents i.e. Application by the Respondent No. 2 to MAHARERA for extension of project dates, booking and payment details only however, neither of his documents are registered documents, on the other hand mortgage of the Respondent Bank duly registered with
2
IA No. 3443/2023 In SA 238 of 2023
the sub Registrar of Assurances, Taluka Andheri.
P.O. DRT-I
Tjs/-41
3
Abdul Kayum Tamboli
Bank of India
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
