Allowed

Shri Murlidgar Ramgopal Mundada v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

DRT21 Mar 2024SA/141/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held that a Section 13(2) notice including agricultural properties violates statutory provisions. It quashed the impugned notice, subsequent actions, and the auction conducted by the bank, directing the return of auction proceeds.

What did the court decide?

The Section 13(2) notice is quashed. The auction is set aside, and the bank is directed to return the amount taken from the auction purchaser.

2 S	1.03.2 r. No.	024 89 S.A.No.141/2023
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.141/2023 Shri Murlidgar Ramgopal Mundada .. Applicant Versus The Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. & others .. Respondent Mr. Vakil Satyajit R - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Suryawanshi Kamlakar J – Advocate for respondent bank Mr. Yogesh Somani – Advocate for respondent no.5 auction purchaser. 1. In this matter, the main grievance of the applicant is that the 13(2) notice includes the agricultural properties. Said passion is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent bank. However, the learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the bank is not taking action against those Agricultural properties mentioned in 13(2) notice. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that it is clarified in the 13(2) notice. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bank has given copies of the 13(2) notice to the concerned Talathi and other authorities whereby they may be intend to enforce the security of agricultural land. 3. Be that it may be, no securitisation action lies against the agricultural properties and as such, having admitted by the bank that the notice includes the agricultural properties, the tribunal is also on the opinion that the said notice requires to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

2
S

1.03.2
r. No.

024
89
S.A.No.141/2023

Classific
ation

No. of
Exh.

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.141/2023
Shri Murlidgar Ramgopal Mundada
.. Applicant
Versus
The Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. &
others
.. Respondent
Mr. Vakil Satyajit R - Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Suryawanshi Kamlakar J – Advocate for respondent bank
Mr. Yogesh Somani – Advocate for respondent no.5 auction
purchaser.
1. In this matter, the main grievance of the applicant is that the
13(2) notice includes the agricultural properties. Said passion
is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent bank.
However, the learned counsel for the respondent bank submits
that the bank is not taking action against those Agricultural
properties mentioned in 13(2) notice.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that it
is clarified in the 13(2) notice. The learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the bank has given copies of the 13(2)
notice to the concerned Talathi and other authorities whereby
they may be intend to enforce the security of agricultural land.
3. Be that it may be, no securitisation action lies against the
agricultural properties and as such, having admitted by the
bank that the notice includes the agricultural properties, the
tribunal is also on the opinion that the said notice requires to
be quashed and accordingly quashed.

4.	In view of the above, I pass the following order : ORDER
A. B.	The Securitisation Application No.141/2023 is allowed. The notice under section 13(2) is hereby quashed.
C.	The bank is at liberty to issue fresh 13(2) notice including only non-agricultural properties.
D.	All the subsequent action taken in pursuance to the 13(2) notice also stand quashed. Auction done by the bank shall also quashed. The bank is directed to return the auction
	purchaser the amount taken by them from the auction purchaser.
E.	The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they are
	ready and willing to liquidate their liability before 30.03.2024. Let them do so
F.	All pending IA in the proceeding, if any are disposed of accordingly.
G.	Consign the file to the Record Room and orders be uploaded on official web-site.
5.	(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

In view of the above, I pass the following order :
ORDER

A.
B.

The Securitisation Application No.141/2023 is allowed.
The notice under section 13(2) is hereby quashed.

The bank is at liberty to issue fresh 13(2) notice including
only non-agricultural properties.

All the subsequent action taken in pursuance to the 13(2)
notice also stand quashed. Auction done by the bank shall
also quashed. The bank is directed to return the auction

purchaser the amount taken by them from the auction
purchaser.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they are

ready and willing to liquidate their liability before
30.03.2024. Let them do so

All pending IA in the proceeding, if any are disposed of
accordingly.

Consign the file to the Record Room and orders be uploaded
on official web-site.

(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

Shri Murlidgar Ramgopal Mundada v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Murlidgar Ramgopal Mundada v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

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

Sharad Ashok Somvanshi versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Sayyad Imran Sayyad Abrar versus Intec Capital Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Sunil Madhukar Aute

Hdfc Bank versus Shree Agencies

State Bank of India versus Mangesh Ramesh Garade

Canara Bank versus Satilal Avchit Koli