In this special application regarding a dispute over property possession and account regularisation prior statements made by the respondent were relied upon to quash its current action and allow the application.
Action of Respondent Bank quashed with all consequences; Present SA allowed.
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.
| 19/12/2023 | Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Order in SA 243 of 2023 Mrs Usha Narendra Vora Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
Advocate Meghnath Navlani appeared for the Applicant. |
I | ||
| T1 MUMBA Advocate Rajesh Nagory a/w Advocate Shreesh Oak, Advocate Dipali Jadhav i/b SC Legal appeared for the Respondent. 1. Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides on the present SA. 2. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant drawn my attention to the order dated 04/07/2023 passed by this Tribunal in SA No. 98/2022 and submits that on perusal of the said order, it is clearly reveals that the Respondent has sought disposal of the SA on the ground that the account is regularised. |
|||
However, today Ld. Counsel for the Respondent informs that there is no |
|||
regularisation of the account. Thus, he submits that the Respondent FI has made the wrong statement before this Tribunal on 04/07/2023. Therefore, he submits that |
|||
| Respondent may be restrained from taking |
| UMBAI possession of the property i.e. all that piece and parcel of Plot No.154 alongwith Bunglow constructed thereto known as “Hira Kunj”, Sector-12, Opp. Oriental School of Management, Vashi, Thane-400703 (for short “property in question”). 3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI submits that the settlement was arrived between the parties and in terms of the said settlement, the Applicant herein was required to deposit the entire settled amount by September 2023 however, the Applicant herein failed to do so therefore, the |
|---|
present SA may be dismissed and |
| DRT1 Respondent may be allowed to take possession of the property in question. 4. Considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record. 5. Admittedly, the SA No. 98/2022 was disposed off by this Tribunal only on the basis of the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that account is regularised. The order dated 04/07/2023 is reproduced herein below: “1. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent informed that account is regularize, |
| DRT1 MUMBAI therefore, all the SARFAESI measures has been withdrawn. 2. In view of the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, the present S.A. is hereby disposed off. 3. File be closed and consigned to record room.” (emphasis provided) 6. Thus, once the Respondent has sought disposal of the SA on the ground that the account is regularised therefore, the Respondent is debarred to take further action on the basis of the earlier notices in the impugned account. The said act of the Respondent is highly deplorable. It is expected from the bank/F.I. to proceed as per the statutory requirement not on their whims and fancies. 7. Thus, in view of the above, the action of the Respondent Bank is hereby quashed with all the consequences and the present SA is hereby allowed. File be closed and consigned to record room. |
|---|
| P.O. DRT-I |
Sgj/-3
Mrs Usha Narendra Vora
Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
