Shreepad Developers v. State Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Divisional Remedies Tribunal rejected an interim application to quash a possession notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, holding the suit against the developer to be collusive because the termination notice was unregistered.
What did the court decide?
Interim relief application to quash the possession notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
I.A. No.3483/2023 SA 241 of 2023
| 21/12/2023 | Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. I.A. No.3483/2023 In SA 241 of 2023 Shreepad Developers Vs State Bank Of India Moghal |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Umar Azam i/b M. V. Kini & Co. appeared for the Respondent. I.A. No.3483/2023 1. By of the present I.A. the Applicant is seeking to quash the order 23/11/2021 passed by the Ld. CMM and also the notice u/Sec. 13(2) for taking possession qua Flat No.302, 3rdFloor in the building known as “Laxmi Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd”. Situated at Eksar Village, Bhabhai Naka, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 091 (hereinafter referred as “property in question”). |
|||
| 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant is not a borrower nor guarantor in the present matter and he also stated that the Applicant is a |
|||
| Developer, Applicant as well as |
|||
| Respondent No.2 entered into an |
|||
| agreement to sale dt.15/03/2019 |
|||
| however, subsequently the Applicant |
1
I.A. No.3483/2023 SA 241 of 2023
herein terminated vide letter dt.22/02/2021 the said agreement to sale as Respondent No.2 did not deposit the dues. He also submits that the Respondent was informed regarding the said termination vide email dt.08/11/2021 as well as dt.23/11/2021, however, despite knowledge of the said termination the Respondent Bank proceeded to take physical possession of the property in question. Thus he submits the Respondent Bank may be restrain from taking physical possession of property in question.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to quash the possession notice issued by the bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Shreepad Developers
- respondent
State Bank Of India
- respondent
Moghal
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court