Allowed

Ms Wudtools v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT15 May 2023SA/364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application, the Tribunal held that the respondent bank failed to follow statutory procedures for taking symbolic possession as notices were improperly served or discarded. The Tribunal allowed the application, quashed the bank's possession notices under Section 13(4), and directed that possession remain with the applicants.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is allowed; the notices dated 21st & 28th April, 2022 for symbolic possession are quashed; possession remains with the applicants.

Ms Wudtools versus Bank of Maharashtra — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 29.06.2022 Registered on: 01.07.2022 Decided on: 15.05.2023 Duration: Y M D 00 10 16

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT AURANGABAD SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.364/2022

¶3

M/s. Wudtools A Partnership firm Dada Manzil, 2^nd Floor, 67-69, Mohammed Ali Road, Mumbai 400 003.

¶4

Mr. Chaitanya L. Sheth residing at Lavina Premises CHSL, Flat No.34 Plot No. 52A, Tagore Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai 400 054.

¶5

Versus

¶6

… Applicants

¶7

The Authorised Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Mumbai City Zonal Office, "Janmangal", 2nd Floor, 45/47. Mumbai Samachar Marg. Fort, Mumbai 400 023.

¶8

Mr. Lokendra D. Sheth, R/o. Plot no. W-11 to W-14. W-20/21, W-26/27, in front of PVR Theater, Barshi Road, MIDC, Latur, 413 531. … Respondents

¶9

APPEARANCE

¶10

For the Applicants Mr. Prashant Kumar a/with Mrs. Saniya S. Shaikh – Advocates For Respondent bank Mr. A.A.Mishra - Advocate

¶11

[APK] (SA No.364/2022) Page 1 of 5

¶12

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

¶13

JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 15.05.2023

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This is an application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the 2002 Act”) and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (for short “the said Rules”).

¶16

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants challenging the action of the respondent bank based on the notice issued under section 13(2) dated 21^st September, 2021 and possession notices 21^st April, 2022 & dated 28^th April, 2022.

¶17

The applicants have engaged new advocate Miss. Saniya S. Shaikh, who has filed her Vakalatnama at Exhibit-06 and as such the previous advocate of the applicants is discharged.

¶18

[APK] (SA No.364/2022) Page 2 of 5

¶19

It is submitted by the applicants that the respondent bank has issued notice of pre-possession to them on 28^th April, 2022 intimating that the possession will be taken on 28^th April, 2022.

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the documents filed with the reply shows the notice dated 21^st April, 2022 is a pre-possession notice is indicated that the possession will be taken on 12^th May, 2022. This notice is also a pre-possession notice, which according to the applicant has not been served.

¶21

In the reply, it is submitted that the notices were pasted on the outer wall of the factory premises. However, the notices were to be served at the premises where the notices have been issued. The notices have not been served.

¶22

There is nothing on record either in reply or in the arguments that a notice for taking symbolic possession has been pasted/delivered on the address and symbolic possession has been taken. Even the notice dated 7^th May, 2022 published in newspapers shows that it is a prepossession notice.

¶23

[APK] (SA No.364/2022) Page 3 of 5

¶24

There are various other issued raised by the applicant as against the demand notice dated 7^th October, 2021.

¶25

This notice dated 06^th May, 2022 is published on 07^th May, 2022 and very interestingly the notice dated 06^th May, 2022 is the same pre-possession notice says that the possession should be handed over on 02^nd May, 2022 on 11 a.m. However, the notice which is published on 06th May, 2022 directing or requesting the applicants herein to handover the possession on 02^nd May, 2022 i.e. anti-dated and shows that no possession is taken.

¶26

There are no steps taken by the bank for taking symbolic possession. The respondent bank has issued notices dated 21^st April, 2023 & 28^th April, 2022 which are prepossession notice.

¶27

Without commenting anything on the validity of the demand notice issued under section 13(2), I pass the following order:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

A. Securitisation Application no. 364/2022 is allowed.

¶30

[APK] (SA No.364/2022) Page 4 of 5

¶31

B. The notices dated 21^st April, 2022 & 28^th April, 2022 are not the notices issued for taking symbolic possession and as such these notices are hereby quashed and set aside. The possession of the property shall remain with the applicants only as no symbolic possession is taken under section 13(4).

¶32

C. The applicants are at liberty to contest the 13(2) notice in case the bank continues with the said notice.

¶33

D. File be consigned to record room.

¶34

Copy of the order be uploaded on the website and free copy be sent to all the parties.

¶35

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad.

¶36

[APK]

¶37

(SA No.364/2022) Page 5 of 5

Ms Wudtools v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Wudtools v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Chandrakant Jadhav versus Union Bank of India

Vishal Balasaheb Avare versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Dilip Uttamrao Suryawanshi

Uttamrao Raosaheb Bornare versus Ajantha Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Janubai Sah. Thibak Sinchan Yojana Maryadit Ruikhel

Prashant Bhaurao Vaidya versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited