Allowed

Mohammed Basith and Others v. City Union Bank Ltd. and Others

DRT23 Jan 2024MA/132/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a miscellaneous application filed by third party purchasers to raise an earlier attachment order made on immovable property in their favor, which was challenged by the borrower/debtor bank as collusive.

What did the court decide?

Allowed Miscellaneous Application No. 132/2023 by raising the attachment made vide order dated 06.03.2019 and made absolute on 06.06.2019 in respect of the petitioners' property.

Mohammed Basith and Others versus City Union Bank Ltd. and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 23'd DAY OF JANUARY,2024}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.Com, L'LB'(Hons'), M'A'}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Miscellaneous Application^No.L32 I^2(J23 tn

¶6

Original Application^{No. 183/2019}

¶7

Mohammed Basith

¶8

S/o Mohammed^Subhani

¶9

Aged 42^years, Occ:Business

¶10

PJo H. No.9-4-4l30.^Tolochowki

¶11

Hakeempet, Hyderabad

¶12

Jabbar Khan

¶13

S/o lumma Khan

¶14

Age 51 years, Occ:Business

¶15

Rlo H.No.22-L-7 L9lLltl^A

¶16

Noor Khan Bazar^{Rao Ramba Ki Devdi}

¶17

Saidabad, Hyderabad

¶18

Kaleema Begum

¶19

W/o labbar Khan

¶20

Age 45^years, Occ:Housewife

¶21

Rlo H.No.22-L-7 T9ltlLl^A

¶22

Noor Khan Bazar Rao Ramba^{Ki Devdi}

¶23

Saidabad, Hyderabad

¶24

...Third Party Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

City Union Bank Ltd

¶27

Rep by its Branch^{Manager & Authorized Officer} situated at L-79-97/L/7,^GroundFloor

¶28

I-G Block, Officers Colony,^{ECIL Post} Hyderabad-500062

¶29

Also at

¶30

H.No.24-8, Gandi Nagar Administrative^Office Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu-612001

¶31

(,/ Vlrry-,.1;",-.)>..

¶32

MA.No.132/202i in OANo.183/2019

¶33

Ivlls Sky High Metal Industries Pvt^Ltd Having its office at Plot No.83, Phase-I,^IDA Cherlapally, Medchal-Malkajgiri^District (old RR District), Telangana

¶34

Rep. by its Director Ramesh Kumar otarmal lain

¶35

Ramesh Kumar Otarmal Jain S/o Otarmal lain

¶36

Aged; Major, Occ: Business R/o H.No.2-3-450, Flat No.8-303 Sri Sai Residency, Gayadeen Bagh Colony M.G. Road, Secunderabad-500003

¶37

M/s Blaze Copper Wires, a Partnership Firm Rep by its partner Hitesh Ramesh lain Having its office at H.No.2-3-450, Flat No.B-303 Sri Sai Residency, Gayadeen Bagh Colony M.G. Road. Nallagutta, Secunderabad-500003

¶38

Hitesh Ramesh Jain

¶39

S/o Ramesh Kumar Otarmal Jain

¶40

Aged : Major, Occ: Business R/o H.No.2-3-450, Flat No.8-303 Sri Sai Residency, Gayadeen Bagh Colony M.G. Road, Secunderabad-soooo3 ...Respondents

¶41

(Respondents 2 to 5 are not necessary parties to the petition)

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner :Mr.Sinde Mohan Counsel for 1't Respondent bank :Mrs.Ch. Laxmi Chaya

¶43

:ORDER:-

¶44

This Miscellaneous Application (MA) No.13212023 is filed by the third parties to OA No.183/2019 to raise attachment in respect of immovable property i.e,, H.No.2-47/79 (consisting of Ground Floor plus First Floot). Plot No,25 in Survey No.75, admeasuring 3OO Sq, Yards equivalent to 25O.8O Sg. Meters having a Built up area of 1848 Sq. feet^(RCC) situated at Kothaguda Village, Serilingampalty Mandal (under GHMC Serilingampally Circte) Ranga Reddy District ("petition schedule property" hereinafter) attached by this Tribunal vide order

¶45

MA.No.132/2023 in OA No.183/2019

¶46

¶47

dated 06.03.2019 in IA No.1114/2019 filed by the 1st respondent bankapplicant bank. The 1st^petitioner, Mohammed Basith has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the petition.

¶48

The 1st respondent bank flled counter affidavit sworn by P. Shravan, Branch Manager.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent bank.^perused the material documents placed on record.

¶50

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they purchased the petition schedule property of 300 sq. yards from Hitesh Ramesh Jain through his GPA holder L. Poornachand in two parts at 150 sq. yards each vide sale deeds dated 1755 and 7756 of 20t9 dated 02.02.2019 registered in the office of the Joint Sub-registrar, Ranga Reddy. After purchase the property, the petitioners demolished the old structure and constructed a new house thereon with requisite GHN4C permission. Their prospective buyers and petitioners approached SRO office and then came to know about attachment of the schedule property made by the learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal in RC No.482l2019 in execution of finat order dated 06.06.2019 in OA No.183/2019. As per learned counsel, there is no charge/mortgage on the subject property and the 1st respondent bank is not justified in getting the property attached which belong to third party petitioners. Unless the attachment in respect of the petition schedule property is raised, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶51

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the lst respondent bank submits that respondents 2 to 5 are borrowers and OA 183/2019 was filed for recovery of dues of Rs.24,45,25,048/ - frcm them. It identifled personal properties of defendants and got attached the same in IA LLL4/2079 in OA

¶52

dY""

¶53

MA.No.132/2023ⁱⁿ oa No.183/2019

¶54

783lZOlg.After^{the respondent bank issued demand notice dated 23 08'2018} toborrowersunderSec.l3(2)oftheSARFAESIAct,the5threspondent executed^{AGPAon 23.01.2019 in favour of L Poornachandwho divided the} property in two^{halvesand sold on 02'02'2}:Igi'e} '^{just before fillng the OA} on 15.02.2019.^{The sale transaction was collusivety done and therefore the} petition may^{be dismissed,otherwise'the1st respondent bank will not be able} to recover^the Public^money'

¶55

Now, the^{point that arises for adjudlcation isi-}

¶56

Whether the^{petitionersmade out anyvalid} .ground^to ,iiii 'iroi"ii tn"^{adachment or the MA scheduleimmovable} "ia"^{order dated 06'03'2019in. ta- 1^1-14/2019} 'uni ,ia" absolute vide final order dated 06'06'2019ⁱⁿ OA No.183/2019^as PraYed^for?

¶57

The^{undisputed facts are; - that the 1st respondent bank filedOA} No.183/2019^{and also moved IA No 1114/2019 seekingconditional} attachment^{beforejudgmentof the identified personal immovableproperties} belongingtodefendantsincludingthepetitionschedulepropertypertainingto 5threspondentHiteshRamesh]ain'ThisTribunalpassedorderon06.03.2019 directing the^{respondent-defendantsto furnish security to the extent of OA} and no^{security was furnished' Hencevide final order dated 06'06'2019in OA} No.183/2019^{the attachment dated06 03 2019 was made absolute by this} Tribunal.^{In execution of saidorder' the learned Recovery Officerhas initiated} recovery^{proceedings againstthe attached Properties includingthat of petition} schedule ProPerty.

¶58

S.Itmanifestsfromcopyofsaledeedsfiledbythepetitionersthatthe petition schedule^{propertyof 300 Sq Ydswas sold in two parts@150 Sq Yds} each by^{the 5th respondentthroughhlsGPAholder ln favourof the petitioners} VidesaledeeddocumentsbearingNo.lT55l2o1gand7756/2019intheofficeZ,v<,y / '/t'n*'r'^'

¶59

MA.No.132/2023ⁱⁿ OA No.183/2019

¶60

of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. Admittedly, the^petition schedule property was an identified personal property on which the 1st respondent bank was not having any charge over it as on the date offiling OA ot lA 1114/2019. Hence it is undeniable fact that as on the date of attachment before^judgment on 06.03.2019, the 5th respondent already sold the property in favour of petitioners on 02,02.2019.

¶61

9, In view of the above observation, I find that the petitioners made out valid ground to raise the attachment made on 06.03.2019 in IA No.1114/20t9 and final order dated 06.06.2019 in OA No.183/20t9 in respect of MA schedule property corresponding to item no.7 of IA No.1114/2019 schedule i.e., H.No.2-47/79t Plot No.25, Sy.No.7S, 3OO sq. yards, Kothaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR District. Accordingly, the MA deserves to be allowed.

¶62

In the result, the MA No.L32/2023 is allowed by raising attachment made vide order dated 06.03.2019 in IA No.1114/2OLg and final order dated 06.06.2019 in OA No.183/2019 passed by this Tribunal in respect of the MA schedule property corresponding to item no.7 of the IA No.1114/2019 petition schedule properties.

¶63

No order as to costs.

¶64

L2. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and the learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶65

(Dictated to the^pS, tranyyibgd by him( corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of January, 2024),

¶66

{/ry"-" (RnMESHWAR KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mohammed Basith and Others v. City Union Bank Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Basith and Others v. City Union Bank Ltd. and Others

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

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Bijender Kumar

Axis Bank versus M/S S. G. L. Traders

Ms Maniks salon and mangli kitchen rep by R Shiva Kumar versus Indusind Bank Limited

Dena Bank versus M/s Trident Tubes Limited.

Ms Sewa Enterprises versus Uco Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ravi Malik