Allowed

Ruhi Nazaneen Md Baki v. Union Bank of India

DRT8 Nov 2023SA/261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application, the DRT noted the respondent bank's non-appearance despite service and its prior closure of recovery proceedings. Finding the bank lacked charge over the fraudulently executed property where it had previously filed a police complaint, the court allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed; declaration that bank has no right to execute on the property as it was fraudulently executed and no charge exists over it.

Ruhi Nazaneen Md Baki versus Union Bank of India — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶2

0 S	8.11.2 r. No.	023 34 SA No.261/2023
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.261/2023 Ruhi Nazaneen MD Baki ..Applicant Versus Union Bank of India ..Respondent Mr. S.R. Vakil - Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent bank. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. In this matter despite service by hand to the Union Bank of India no one is appeared on 31^stAugust, 2023. 2. None appears for the respondent bank. As recorded in my orders dated 07^thAugust, 2023, the recovery proceedings are already closed.
		3. Non-appearance and non-filing of the reply and closure of the recovery certificate shows that the bank is well aware that they have no charge in this property as it was fraudulently executed on it.
		4. Since the bank has itself filed the police complaint this SA is disposed off.

¶3

[SBJ] (SA No.261/2023) Page 1 of 2

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶5

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶6

ORDER SHEET

¶7

5. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing.
ORDER
A. The Securitisation Application No.261/2023 stands allowed.
B. It is declared that the bank has no right to execute as no charged over the property i.e. All the piece and parcel of
property at CTS No.6325, House No.3-5-49, total admeasuring area 119.7 sq meter, Sarafa Gandhi Chowk Mohalla, Shahganj, Aurangabad is established. C. File be consigned to the record room. (Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶8

[SBJ] (SA No.261/2023) Page 2 of 2

Ruhi Nazaneen Md Baki v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruhi Nazaneen Md Baki v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Nilofar Raheman Shaikh versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Bhumi Enterprises versus Godavari Laxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Manoj Narayan Adhane versus Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Vinaykumar Rikhabchand Kothari versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Manda Dhondiba Barve versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Ravindra Dattatraya Dahiwal