The DRT dismissed an auction sale petition as not maintainable because the auction failed due to no bids. The court also held the petition was not maintainable as the applicant was a third party who had already challenged the possession notice in a previous sale petition.
The application for auction sale petition is dismissed and the matter is filed be closed.
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.
| 23/03/2023 | Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in SA 44 of 2023 Mr. Ajit B Kerkar Vs Yes Bank |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate Mr. Ismail Nasikwala a/w Mr. Daksha A. P., Pragati H. Jaggi i/b Mr.Ashok M. Saraogi appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Mr. Nitin G. Thakker a/w. Vinod Kothari, Priyansh Jain i/b M/s. Apex Law Partners for Respondent no. 3 Ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondent no. 3 inform that no bid has been received for the auction schedule today. He also submits that the present SA has been filed by a third party who is claiming himself a tenant only, thus now nothing survive in the present SA as auction has failed. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that this SA may be kept pending, otherwise for the fresh action the fresh SA will be filed and that would create multiplicity of the cases. He also submits that in the present SA, the applicant is challenging the action under Section 13 (2) as well as 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, therefore, he submits the present SA may not be disposed off today. |
SA 44 of 2023
| Looking to the fact that the applicant herein, | |
|---|---|
| in the present SA mainly raised prayer regarding the impugned auction however, the said auction has failed due to want of bids, therefore, the present SA is not maintainable now. In so far as submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant that he has challenge action under |
|
| Section 13 (2) as well as 13 (4) under | |
| SARFAESI Act, 2002, is concern, since the | |
| applicant is a third party and further the applicant has already challenge possession notice vide earlier SA which was already disposed off by this tribunal and according to the applicant the appeal is still pending against the said order therefore, in these facts and circumstances also the present SA is not |
|
| maintainable now thus, same is hereby dismissed. Filed be closed and consigned to record room. |
|
| Ex. 11 | Vakalatnama P.O. DRT-I |
Mnt/-21
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an auction sale petition is maintainable when the auction has failed due to want of bids.
Whether a third party can challenge Section 13(2) and 13(4) action after failing a prior petition regarding possession notice.
Whether the dispute requires fresh sale petition due to changed circumstances.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Ajit B Kerkar
Yes Bank
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
