Dismissed

Dipesh Kabra Binodkumar v. South Indian Bank

DRT3 Jun 2023SA/61/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to quash a demand and possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court rejected submissions regarding improper service and willingness to deposit dues. It further dismissed the case on procedural grounds due to lack of authorization letter for second applicant and lack of locus standi.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to quash the notice of possession and demand notice was dismissed; file closed.

03/06/2023

Ex.
No.

Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar,
DRT-1, Mumbai.
Roznama in SA 61 of 2023
Dipesh Kabra Binodkumar Vs South Indian
Bank

Next date

Advocate Mr. Rajesh Nagory a/w Puru Jain &
Shaan, M & Daneel Pancras i/b Jain Law
Partners appeared for the Applicant.
Advocate Mr. Pritesh Bansode appeared for the
Respondent.
Today the matter is listed for order on the SA.
1. By way of the present SA, the Applicants
are seeking to quash and set aside the
Possession Notice dated 15/02/2023 and
demand Notice dated 29/11/2022 and
other relief.
2. During the course of the argument, Ld.
Counsel for the Applicants submitted
that the action of the Respondent bank, is

not in accordance with law. He submitted
that in the one demand notice u/Section
13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the
Respondent included three accounts
which are not permitted under the law.
He also submitted that the Applicant no.1

is now director of the Applicant no.2

	however, no demand notice is served
	upon the Applicant no.1 therefore, the
	entire proceeding of the Respondent be quashed on this ground also.
3.	He also stated that the Respondent
	themselves has stated total dues are
	around Rs. 3.98 Crores and now the
	Applicant no.1 is ready to deposit the
	said amount the Respondent is not ready to accept the same therefore, he submits the action of the Respondent bank may be quashed.
4.	On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the
	Respondent strongly objected to the
	present SA and submitted that all the
	three accounts are group accounts
	therefore demand notice was issued
	together for all the group companies.
5.	He also submitted that the Applicant is not the owner of the property in question
	as well as the Applicant was not in the
	management of the Applicant no.2
	therefore, no demand notice was issued
	in the name of the Applicant No.1.
	Further, he submitted that the Applicant
	no.2 never informed regarding any

however, no demand notice is served

upon the Applicant no.1 therefore, the

entire proceeding of the Respondent be
quashed on this ground also.

He also stated that the Respondent

themselves has stated total dues are

around Rs. 3.98 Crores and now the

Applicant no.1 is ready to deposit the

said amount the Respondent is not ready
to accept the same therefore, he submits
the action of the Respondent bank may be
quashed.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the

Respondent strongly objected to the

present SA and submitted that all the

three accounts are group accounts

therefore demand notice was issued

together for all the group companies.

He also submitted that the Applicant is
not the owner of the property in question

as well as the Applicant was not in the

management of the Applicant no.2

therefore, no demand notice was issued

in the name of the Applicant No.1.

Further, he submitted that the Applicant

no.2 never informed regarding any

changes in the management committee
and therefore, Applicants cannot claim
any relief on the basis of non-issuance of demand notice to the concerned parties.
6. He also stated that the Applicant is not the owner of the property in question.
Therefore, request of the Applicant no.1
to deposit the dues of the said account is
not acceptable and therefore, he
submitted that the present SA may be
dismissed with costs.
7. Having heard rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record.
8. On perusal of the SA, it reveals that the
present SA is filed by two Applicants. For
the Applicant no.2 it is mentioned that
the Applicant no.1 is duly authorised to
represent the Applicant no.2 however no
authority letter of the Applicant no.2
company is placed on record. Thus, the
present SA is liable to be dismissed on
this ground alone.
9. Even otherwise, Applicant no.1 neither
borrower nor mortgager of Plot No. A /
5-1 known as “Shree Somnath Mahadev
Co Op Housing Society” in the name of

changes in the management committee

and therefore, Applicants cannot claim

any relief on the basis of non-issuance of
demand notice to the concerned parties.

6. He also stated that the Applicant is not
the owner of the property in question.

Therefore, request of the Applicant no.1

to deposit the dues of the said account is

not
acceptable
and
therefore,
he

submitted that the present SA may be

dismissed with costs.

7. Having heard rival contentions of the
parties and gone through the record.

8. On perusal of the SA, it reveals that the

present SA is filed by two Applicants. For

the Applicant no.2 it is mentioned that

the Applicant no.1 is duly authorised to

represent the Applicant no.2 however no

authority letter of the Applicant no.2

company is placed on record. Thus, the

present SA is liable to be dismissed on

this ground alone.

9. Even otherwise, Applicant no.1 neither

borrower nor mortgager of Plot No. A /

5-1 known as “Shree Somnath Mahadev

Co Op Housing Society” in the name of

Mr. Vikas Purushtam Saraf and Mrs.
Manisha Vikas Saraf admeasuring
334.35sq.mtr. located at RSY no.40/2, 41 /6 Paiki, TP scheme no. 05, Umara north,
Umara Choryasi, Surat 335007, for the
account impugned, however, now the
Applicant no.1 stated that he may be
allowed to remain on the property in question on the deposit of the dues of the
Respondent Bank. The said submission of the Applicant no.1 is not acceptable as he has no locus. 10. Insofar as, demand notice u/Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is concerned, since all the accounts are related to group
companies therefore, there is no
substance in the objection taken by the
Applicants.
11. In view of the above, there is no
substance in the present SA therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. P.O. DRT-I

Mr. Vikas Purushtam Saraf and Mrs.

Manisha
Vikas
Saraf
admeasuring

334.35sq.mtr. located at RSY no.40/2, 41
/6 Paiki, TP scheme no. 05, Umara north,

Umara Choryasi, Surat 335007, for the

account impugned, however, now the

Applicant no.1 stated that he may be

allowed to remain on the property in
question on the deposit of the dues of the

Respondent Bank. The said submission of
the Applicant no.1 is not acceptable as he
has no locus.
10. Insofar as, demand notice u/Section 13(2)
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is concerned,
since all the accounts are related to group

companies
therefore,
there
is
no

substance in the objection taken by the

Applicants.

11. In view of the above, there is no

substance in the present SA therefore, the
same is hereby dismissed.
P.O.
DRT-I

Dipesh Kabra Binodkumar v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipesh Kabra Binodkumar v. South Indian Bank

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

Mr Shekhar Mennon versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Seema

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Mahasin Mia

Amool Shivaji Rokade versus The Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

Ms a B Waluj versus Recovery Officer Drt I

Manoj Kumar Sharma versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited