Dismissed

Smt Megha Panwar v. Bank of Baroda

DRT18 Feb 2023SA/764/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the securitization application filed by Megha and Utpal Panwar against Bank of Baroda as time-barred. The tribunal held the application contained concealment of material facts, including High Court orders and an agreement for sale of the mortgaged property, and found the delay unjustified despite opportunities to deposit outstanding dues.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the Securitization Application (SA/764/2022) as dismissed.

Smt Megha Panwar versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA/764/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.- 764/2022

¶5

1. MEGHA PANWAR

¶6

W/o Sh. Utpal Panwar,

¶7

R/o House No. 38, Laxman Vihar – 1^st , Kunhari, Kota, Rajasthan - 324008

¶8

2. SHRI UTPAL PANWAR

¶9

S/o Mr. Kishanlal Meena, R/o House No. 38, Laxman Vihar – 1^st , Kunhari, Kota, Rajasthan - 324008

¶10

………Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

BANK OF BARODA Branch Office at Rampura Bazar, Kota, Rajasthan - 324006

¶13

---- Respondent Bank

¶14

Counsel –

¶15

Sh. Palav Shrivastava , Ld. Counsel for the Applicants

¶16

Sh. Sanjog Gupta, Ld. counsel for Respondent Bank

¶17

(Final Order)

¶18

(18.02.2023)

¶19

This SA was filed 07.12.2022 and vide Order dt. 21.12.2022, Applicants were directed to deposited an amount of Rs. 4.00 Lac and same was deposited.

¶20

Reply to the SA was filed on 05.01.2023.

¶21

Availing credit facility, through AnnexureP/7, is admitted. Before proceeding for final arguments, Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank, filed on record, copy of notice issued by Civil Court in CM No. 585/2022, filed by Mr. Kastoor Chand against the Respondent

¶22

¶23

SA/764/2022

¶24

Bank. This Miscellaneous Application, was filed by Mr. Kastoor Chand claiming as Proprietor of the subject mortgaged property.

¶25

1. Copy of Order of Hon’ble High Court dt. 09.03.2022, passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12090/2018, is filed.

¶26

In reply, preliminary objections taken by Respondent Bank are required to be decided. In para 5 of the reply it is claimed that the Applicant failed to inform to this Tribunal, that the Applicant filed a Writ Petition, before Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and said Writ Petition No. 5459/2021, titled as MEGHA PANWAR V/s BANK OF BARODA, was dealt with by Hon’ble High Court. ld. counsel referred Annexure-R/2, Order dt. 06.05.2021, passed by Hon’ble High Court, through which, the Applicant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.50 Lac with seven days, but no amount was deposited, so vide Order dt. 23.05.2022, Applicant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- within a period of five weeks time but no amount was deposited and so Hon’ble High Court again vide Order dt. 11.07.2022, prayer for extension of time to deposit the amount was dismissed and the interim stay, granted by Hon’ble High Court, through Order dt. 23.05.2022, was vacated. 6. For ready reference, Orders Hon’ble Court dt. 06.05.2021, 23.05.2022 and 11.07.2022 are reproduced here under –

¶27

“ Order dt. 06/05/2021

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the remaining amount.

¶29

¶30

SA/764/2022

¶31

Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application, returnable within eight weeks.

¶32

Additionally, the notices may be served through e-mail also.

¶33

In the meanwhile, if the petitioner deposit 1.5 lac with the respondent-Bank within a period of 7 days from today, further proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act shall remain stayed.”

¶34

“Order dt.23.05.2022

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted a bank statement showing total outstanding due against the petitioner as on date 20.05.2022 as Rs. 38,400,49.24.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given a reasonable time to pay the entire outstanding amount which may be found to be due against her and submits that she would deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000,00/- within a period of four weeks from today.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶38

In view thereof, the interim order dated 06.05.2021 is continued till the next date provided that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 10,000,00/- with the respondents within a period of five weeks from today.

¶39

List the matter on 08.07.2022 as prayed.”

¶40

“Order dt.11/07/2022

¶41

The matter has come up on an application No. 1/2021 filed by the

¶42

¶43

SA/764/2022

¶44

respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of ex parte interim order dated 06.05.2021.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some more time to make the payment as directed by this Court vide its order dated 23.05.2022.

¶46

The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶47

This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the notice vide Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the SARFAESI Act”). The Hon’ble Apex Court has, in case of Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Imperial Gift House & Ors.; (2013) 14 SCC 622, held that the High Court should not interfere with the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act under its writ jurisdiction. Still, on the readiness and willingness expressed by the petitioner to pay the entire outstanding amount, this Court has, vide its order dated 06.05.2021, stayed the proceedings under Section 13(2) provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs within 7 days. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted time to seek instructions and on her request to grant a reasonable time to pay the entire outstanding amount with an undertaking that she would deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs within a period of 4 weeks, this Court has, vide its order dated 23.05.2022, condinued the interim order dated 06.05.2021 till today subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 10 lacs by

¶48

¶49

SA/764/2022

¶50

the petitioner within a period of 5 weeks; but, neither the order has not been complied with nor, any reason has been assigned for noncompliance thereof.

¶51

In view thereof, this Court does not deem it just and proper to extend the interim order dated 06.05.2021 which is vacated hereby.”

¶52

It is main objection, taken by the SA Applicant that the SA Applicant enjoyed an Order of interim stay since 06.05.2021 till 11.07.2022 and failed to disclose, this fact, so the SA, is barred by Limitation and, so this SA, is required to be disposed as dismissal on account of Limitation.

¶53

As, the Application is enclosed with an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act, so the same is being decided first.

¶54

Application U/s 5 of Limitation Act was filed and in para 1 of it, details of Possession Notice 12.07.2022 and Order dt. 08.09.2022 is mentioned.

¶55

In para 2 of the IA, delay is explained on account of great personal difficulty on account of divorce proceedings undergoing between them. Along with this application no such proof is filed.

¶56

It is important to mention here that while filing WRIT PETITION NO. 5459/2021, the Applicant was having knowledge, initiated by the Respondent Bank and since 06.05.2021, they enjoyed stay till 11.07.2022, when the interim stay was vacated. But, no such details, is given by SA Applicant in the SA. 12. Most important document is at AnnexureR/5, through which, the SA Applicant

¶57

¶58

SA/764/2022

¶59

entered into an agreement for sale of subject mortgaged property on 14.09.2022 in favour of Smt. Urmila Sharma, whereas, this SA was filed on 07.12.2022 and the Applicant also failed to inform, this fact, while filing of this SA.

¶60

On 16.02.2022, Ld. counsel for SA Applicant filed Written Argument coupled with a Notice dt. 06.02.2023 issued by Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Advocate addressed to SA Applicant No. 1. through which he withdrew, his Vakalatnama on behalf of Mr. Utpal Kanwar, Applicant No. 2.

¶61

This matter was taken up for hearing on 03.02.2023 and, if Ld. counsel withdraw their Vakalatnama on behalf of any of the Applicant, the Applicant was required to take care of his case and was required either to appear personally or through another duly appointed counsel, so it was sweet will of Applicant No. 2, either to remain present or not.

¶62

So far as, the issue of merits as discussed in the Written Arguments and discussed in Judgements cited by ld. counsel for the Applicant’s, needs no consideration because before entering into merits of the case, issue of delay in filing of this SA, concealment of orders passed by Hon’ble High Court, which were passed before filing of this SA and also considering the fact that the Applicant failed to comply with the directions issued by Hon’ble High Court, failed to deposit the amount, enjoyed the order of Stay and then filed this SA.

¶63

¶64

SA/764/2022

¶65

Based on abovesaid fact, in my considered opinion, the Applicant failed to disclose, various facts and this SA is full of concealments. The Applicants and her family members are busy in various other litigations, which are totally with intent to frustrate the recovery proceedings, initiated by the Bank. The Applicant got sufficient opportunities from the Hon’ble High Court, gave false assurances and disobeyed the orders of Hon’ble High Court also.

¶66

Therefore SA, is based on concealment of facts, delay is not well explained, all the actions were well within the knowledge of SA Applicant and so the delay in filing of this SA, is not liable to be accepted.

¶67

Accordingly, SA is badly time barred, SA Applicant failed to disclose material facts, executed an agreement to sale the mortgaged property illegally, before filing of this SA but failed to inform this fact also. So, this SA stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶68

(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

Smt Megha Panwar v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Megha Panwar v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lt Col Jagdish Chandra Sharma versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Sanjay Kumar Bundail versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Nidhikamal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

Rajendra Kumar Agrawal versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Jai Hanuman Enterprises

Punjab National Bank versus Jagdev