The Deputy Registrar treated a mortgagee bank's action under the SARFAESI Act following settlement default. The court dismissed the applicant's prayer for interim relief to restrain possession, finding no good case on merit due to non-adherence to settlement terms and prior failure to object to the NPA classification.
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.
| 17/01/2024 | Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in SA 12 of 2024 Reena Subhash Passi And Anr Vs Unity Small Finance Bank Limited |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| D | R | T1 MUMBA Advocate appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Rajesh Nagori a/w Adv. Vinay Deshpande appeared for the Respondent. IA No. 102/2024 1. By way of the present IA the Applicant is praying that Respondent may be restrained from taking any steps in respect of the property situated at Flat No. 202, B/Wing, Dhiraj Swapna CHS Ltd, Pali Naka, Pali Hill, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 and Flat No. 704, 7th Floor, A-Wing, Dhiraj Apartment, Natvar Nagar, Road No. 1, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai- 400 060 (hereinafter referred to as “property in question”) and/ or to take physical possession in pursuance of order dated 30/10/2021 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant contends that Respondent Company disbursed a loan to utilise in agricultural land to convert it into non-agricultural land, and the possession was given to PMC |
I |
1
| bank in 2012, i.e. total area 8 acres |
|---|
| situated at Wada, however at the |
| relevant time the conveyance was registered for only 4 acres though the |
| RT1 MUMBAI possession was given of 10 acres subject to converted land use. He also submits that Applicant has complied terms and conditions immediately in 2012, however, an undue delay was caused by the Bank officer. He also submits the consideration amount of Rs. 2,59,00,000/- is still remaining pending due which is the consideration for the Applicant. 3. However, instead of proceeding on their commitments the Respondent arbitrarily issued the demand notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and also obtained an order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, from the Ld. CMM. He also |
| D submits that to protect the property in question, the Applicant approached the bank to settle the account and some amount is deposited by the Applicant in pursuance of the said settlement therefore, he submits Respondent may be restrained from taking possession of the property in question. |
2
| 4. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent strongly objected to the |
|---|
| BAI present IA, and submits that any commitment or arrangement between the parties in the year 2012 has no concerned on the account impugned. 5. He also submits that since Applicant committed default therefore, the bank proceeded further and issued demand notice under section 13 (2) of the |
| M SARFAESI Act, 2002, and also obtained the order under section 14 of |
| 1 MU the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He also submits that the Applicant is well aware about the action taken by the bank however, at that point of time the Applicant did not raise any objection and now just to harass the recovery of |
| T the Respondent, the Applicant is making concocted stories. He further |
submits that the Applicant gave a |
| D proposal for settlement however, did not adhere the terms of the settlement. Therefore, he submits the Applicant is not entitled for any relief and thus, the present IA may be dismissed with cost. 6. Considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the record. |
3
DRT-I
Tjs/-5
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interim relief should be granted to restrain the respondent bank from taking possession of the property.
Whether the applicant has a good case on merit for interim relief given the default in meeting settlement terms.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Reena Subhash Passi And Anr
Unity Small Finance Bank Limited
Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
