Allowed

Shambaba Cotton Industries v. Sangli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT15 Jun 2024SA/200/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged the bank's securitization actions, including sale of property, violating SARFAESI Act mandates. The tribunal set aside the auction and sale due to procedural violations, lack of evidence for compliance, and improper delegation, ordering the bank to re-evaluate dues.

What did the court decide?

Securitization application allowed; all actions under securitization including sale set aside; mortgage declared valid; bank to issue fresh notice.

Shambaba Cotton Industries versus Sangli Urban Co-Operative… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on:	07/05/2022
Registered on:	07/05/2022
Decided on:	15/06/2024
Duration:	Y M D
	02 01 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Securitization Application No. 200 of 2022

¶4

1. Shambaba Cotton Industries, Gut No.45, Bahirwadi, Kurla Road, Beed, Through its partners

¶5

1. Pandurang S/o Bansilalji Bhutada Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Rangar Galli,Beed

¶6

1. Kailas S/o Ramgopal Chandak, Age: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Loni, Shahjanpura,Tq. Dist. Beed

¶7

1. Shri Ashok Papalal Chandak, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Loni, Shahjanpura,Tq. Dist. Beed … APPLICANT

¶8

Versus 1. The Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Sangli, Head Office, 404, Khandbhag, Sangli – 416 416, Through one of its branch at Beed

¶9

1. The Authorised Officer, The Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd; Sangli, Head Office, 404, Khandbhag, Sangli – 416 416 Through one of its branch at Beed RESPONDEN

¶10

RESPONDEN

¶11

(APK)

¶12

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 1 of 19

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

For Applicants Mr. S.V.Adwant For Respondents bank Mrs. Madhuri R. Vaidya, Advocate

¶15

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

Pronounced on :

15.06.2024

J U D G M E N T

This is an application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the 2002 Act”) and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (for short “the said Rules”) seeking declaration that the Sale Deed dated 25/02/2020executed in favour of the Respondent No.1 Bank is illegal and void for want of statutory compliance and the measures taken by the Respondent Bank in respect of the land belonging to the Applicant No.1 at Mauje Bahirwadi, Tal. & Dist. Beed, S.No.45 admeasuring 1H61R (4 Acres i.e. 16193 sq.mts.) and building thereon (location of the said Land in front of New Mondha, Kurla Road, Beed (hereinafter referred to as “the property”)are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It also prayed for a declaration that the Sale Notice dated 18.11.2019 and the Sale Certificate dated 31.12.2019 issued on the basis thereof is null and void for want of statutory compliance.

¶20

(APK)

¶21

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 2 of 19

¶22

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:

¶23

The Applicant Nos.2 to 4 are the Partners of Applicant No.1 partnership firm, who availed loan facilities from the Respondent No.1 Bank. Respondent No.2 is the Authorised Officer ofRepsondentNo.1/financial institution who has been entrusted with the recovery connected with the loan availed by Applicants. It is pleaded that the Applicants availed Cash Credit facility of Rs.4,50,00,000/- and TOD of Rs.50,00,000/-, aggregating to loan facilities of Rs.5,00,00,000/- from the Respondent No.1 Bank for the purpose of their business.

¶24

Applicant pleads that as per case of the Respondent Nos.1/Bank and 2, the borrower partnership firm was irregular in the payment of the loan facilities and thereby the loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset (for short “NPA”). The Respondent Bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act by issuing demand notice U/S. 13(2) on 28/04/2016, thereby calling upon the Applicants to pay Rs.5,32,71,087/- (including interest up to 31/03/2016). Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued a Pre-Possession Notice dated05/08/2016 and accordingly, took the physical possession of the property on 19/08/2016. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent No.1 Bank published the possession notice in the newspaper on 24/08/2016.

¶25

The Respondents obtained the Order dated 07/02/2019 from the DM, Beed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Pursuant to the above Order, the Naib Tahsildar, Beed directed the Talathi to execute the Order with assistance from the Police. On 28/03/2019,

¶26

(APK)

¶27

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 3 of 19

¶28

the Talathi and Mandal Adhikari took the possession of the property of the Applicants and delivered the same to the Respondent No.1/Bank.

¶29

The Respondent No.1/Bank put the immovable and movable properties to sale at four instances, the details whereof are as under:

¶30

i. The first Sale Notice dated 30/03/2019 was issued by the Respondent No.1/Bank for the auction to be held on 03/05/2019. However, no bids were received.

¶31

ii. The second Sale Notice was issued on 16/07/2019 for the sale of the movable and immovable properties to be held on 08/08/2019. It is reported that the movables hypothecated with the Respondent No.1/Bank were sold to S.K. Steel (Proprietor – Shahajad Mohammad Hasankhan) for an amount of Rs.33,20,000/- and Sale Certificate dated 23/08/2019 issued to the purchaser. No bids received in respect of the immovable property.

¶32

iii. The third Sale Notice for the sale of the property was issued on 03/01/2019. However, no bids were received by the Respondent No.1/Bank.

¶33

iv. The fourth Sale Notice was issued on 18/11/2019.On the basis of the Resolution No.3/7 dated 04/11/2019 passed by the managing committee of the Respondent No.1/Bank, the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent No.1/Bank was conferred with the powers to purchase the property of the Applicants, who further delegated his powers to the Branch Manager of the Respondent No.1/Bank.

¶34

(APK)

¶35

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 4 of 19

¶36

In view of the non-receipt of the bids, the Respondent No.1/Bank, through its Chief Executive Officer, purchased the property for an amount of Rs.3,21,00,000/- and issued a Sale Certificate on 31/12/2019. Thereafter, a registered Sale Deed dated 25/02/2020 bearing No.727/2020.

¶37

The Applicants plead that the Demand Notice suffers from several incurable defects – the dues in the loan accounts have not been separately stated, interest not charged as per the loan contracts, penal interest charged and debited, unauthorized debits done, incorrect amounts claimed in the demand notice. The Applicants further plead that the Respondents have no right to take steps not contemplated by the SARFAESI Act and the pre-possession notice dated 05/08/2019 was against the rule of law. Also, the Possession Notice dated 24/08/2016 was published in the newspapers without following the mandate of Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is pleaded that the notice was neither delivered to the Applicants nor affixed at a conspicuous part of the property. The Notice was not published in the vernacular newspaper and that No separate panchnama was drawn by the Respondent No.1/Bank.

¶38

The Applicants further plead that the execution of the DM, Beed Order dated 07/02/2019 by the Naib Tahsildar’s direction to the Talathi and Mandal Adhikari runs contrary to the rule of delegation of powers and amounts to unauthorized sub-delegation. Such form delegation is hit by the maxim Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare – which precludes the exercise of the delegated powers by any other person, except by the delegated authority. The Applicants’ case

¶39

(APK)

¶40

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 5 of 19

¶41

against the illegality of the Sale Notice dated 18/11/2019 is elaborately set out in para 21 of the SA and the issuance thereof is in contravention of Rules 8(5), 8(6) and 8(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is further pleaded that the bid placed by the Respondent No.2 was not as per the Resolution dated 04.11.2019 passed by the managing committee of the Respondent No.1/Bank. This also runs contrary to the law of delegation and the maxim – Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare.

¶42

The Respondents have filed their Say (Exh.7) to the SA denying all adverse allegations against the Bank. The Respondents have also filed the Written Note of Arguments which are reproduced as under:

¶43

“ 1) In the present application the Applicants have challenged all the orders and action arising out of the 13(2) notice dt. 28/04/2016, and the subsequent action of taking possession on 19/08/2016, the actual physical possession been taken as per the orders of the DMdt.07/02/2019 on 28/03/2019, the sale notice has been issued on 03/05/2019, 08/08/2019, 03/10/2019, 18/11/2019 for sale on 10/12/2019 and which have never been challenged, but the sale certificate issued on 31/12/2019, and which is registered on 25/02/2020 is being challenged, after a period of more than 4 years from the date of issuance of the demand notice under section 13(2), dt. 28/04/2016. Such reliefs as sought for by the Applicant are totally harred by the law of limitation and the same cannot he considered.

¶44

2) Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that the reliefs as sought for by the Applicants in the present SA are in itself not tenable and maintainable. The Applicants have knowledge about public sale notice and that the sale of immovable property was conducted on 10/12/2019. In that sale proceeding bank has submitted tender of Rs.3 Crore 21 Lakh. The Authorised Officer of the bank accepted the Bank tender, which is more than the reserve price and after depositing the entire tender amount the Authorised officer of the bank has

¶45

(APK)

¶46

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 6 of 19

¶47

issued the sale certificate on 31/12/2019, and only the registration of the same was done on 25/02/2020. hence considering this aspect the SA has not been filed within limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Whereas all the reliefs sought for in the application are time barred and the SA is required to be rejected by granting compensatory costs to the Respondent bank. The property purchased by bank as NBA could not be sold further and recovery made, as the further action could not be taken due to the acts of the Applicants, as also in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal to maintain status quo in the matter since 19/05/2022, thereby causing irreparable loss and injustice to the Respondent bank as the ready purchaser backed out due to the delay. It is further submitted that, by purchase of property as NBA and appropriation of the amount in the loan account, the entire dues of the Applicant cannot be satisfied. So the Respondent bank has taken further action under the provisions of the M.C.S. Act., for the recovery of the balance dues. The Applicants are not depositing any amount nor are trying to settle the matter, hence the Applicants donot deserve any sympathy from the Hon'ble Tribunal. This Hon'ble Tribunal has given many opportunities and has even granted an opportunity in the Lokadalat, however the Applicants are not coming forward at all.

¶48

Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that the admitted facts of the matter are as under:

¶49

Loans availed by the Applicants are

¶50

1.	Cash Credit	Rs. 4,50,00,000/-	Account action	under recovery
2.	TOD	Rs. 50,00,000/-	Account action	under recovery
3.	Industrial loan	Rs. 15,00,000/-	Account machinery credited.	closed due to auction amount

¶51

(APK)

¶52

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 7 of 19

¶53

Term Loan	Rs.	Account closed	due to
	26,00,000/-	immovable	property
		auction amount cr	edited.
Total	Rs.5,41,00,000	/-

¶54

The Bank has issued the demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 28/04/2016 as the accounts were in NPA as on 30/01/2016. The said notices were issued independently to all the above-mentioned accounts on the same date. The same has been duly received by the Applicants. NO reply and or representation has been given to the Respondent with respect to the said 13(2) notice by the Applicants.

¶55

The bank has thereafter issued a pre possession notice dt. 08/08/2016 for taking of the symbolic possession on 19/08/2016. The same was taken on the said date and the Possession notice as per rules was published on 24/08/2016. No action and or any proceedings were initiated by the Applicant as against the said possession notice.

¶56

The Bank has there after filed proceedings before the D.M under section 14 and the order was passed on 07/02/2019, and the possession of the secured asset was handed over to the Authorised Officer by the Tahsildar on 28/03/2019

¶57

The Authorised Officer has published the sale of the movable and immovable property on the following date:

¶58

1. First sale notice dt 30/03/2019 for the sale to be held on

¶59

(APK)

¶60

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 8 of 19

¶61

03/05/2019 of the movable and immovable properties and has accordingly published the same in Pudhari and Parsvarbhumi. No bids were received.

¶62

1. Second sale notice was issued on 16/07/2019 for the sale to be held on 08/08/2019 of the movables and immovable properties. However, in the said sale the movables could be sold to S.K. Steel; prop; Shahajad Mohamand Hasankhan, for the amount of Rs. 33,20,000/- The immovable property could not be sold. The sale certificate in respect of the movables was issued to the said purchaser on 23/08/2019.

¶63

1. Third Sale notice was issued in respect of the immovable property on 03/10/2019 however no bids were received.

¶64

1. The fourth sale notice was issued on 18/11/2019 for the sale to be held on 10/12/2019.

¶65

In the said sale dt. 10/12/2019 when the bids were not received on 10/12/2019, the Defendant Bank has purchased the property through its Chief Executive Officer for the amount of Rs 321,00,000/- The sale Certificate has been issued on 31/12/2019, whereas the same has been registered on 25/02/2020 with the office of the Sub Registrar Beed at sr. No. 727/2020, Hence the Defendant bank has become the absolute owner of the said property. There is no challenge to the said sale thereafter.

¶66

Suddenly when the Bank could obtain a purchaser for the said property purchased by itself, and the said purchaser is also known to the Applicant, the Applicants with malafide motives appears to have

¶67

(APK)

¶68

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 9 of 19

¶69

filed the present SA on the 4th of May 2022, by trying to take undue benefit of the protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of limitation due to Covid-19 Pandemic However the Hon'ble Supreme Court and RBI guidelines is applicable to only those accounts which are became NPA due to Covid-19 pandemic period, the accounts of the Applicants are NPA on 30/01/2016 that is before Covid-19 pandemic period and old NPA, so the said protection is not available to the Applicants and the said SA is required to he rejected on the point of limitation itself.

¶70

The respondent submits that the applicants have in the present SA challenged everything right from the issuance of 13(2) notice and/or the contents of 13(2) notice dated 28/04/2016 and registration of Sale Certificate on 25/02/2020 However there is absolutely no challenge to the sale of movable properties conducted on 22/08/2019. The applicants have thus waived the right to challenge the same. The applicants are well aware of each and every action taken by the disputant Bank but not challenge any action prior to filing of this SA. The applicants have approached to this Hon'ble Tribunal only on hearsay about the sale of the property purchased by the bank U/s 13(5A) of SARFAESI Act. Most of the grounds are only with respect to notice U/s 13(2), possession U/S 13(4) &14 and by making random allegations by way of pleading which cannot he sustained. The Applicants have challenged the action on the ground, the property has been undervalued. The applicants are always at liberty to bring in purchasers for a higher value as per their valuation which the applicants have failed to do, hence has no right

¶71

(APK)

¶72

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 10 of 19

¶73

to make any allegations as to valuation.

¶74

The grounds with respect to 30 day’s notice is false and hence not. admitted. As already stated hereinabove the auction was the 4- auction conducted by the bank for which no 30 days notice is necessary. As per the proviso of Rule 9(1) of Security Interest Rules, the 15 days clear notice has in issue as provided in the said rules. Hence such submissions are unwarranted. It is totally false that the CERSAI charge is not registered. The copy of said charge is annexed to the Sale Deed at page 118 of the compilation of the registered documents. Such allegations are just allegations which cannot be considered The further allegations that dispute filed before the cooperative court for the recovery of dues is not bar the action under SARFAESI. Hence the same cannot be considered.

¶75

The applicants have failed to make out any case with respect to any illegality committed by the defendant or the Authorised Officer and hence there has been no merit in the SA. The same may kindly be rejected with cost. It is therefore prayed that,

¶76

a) The SA may kindly be rejected.

¶77

b) The Applicant may kindly be directed to pay compensatory cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- for defending a time barred, false and frivolous application.

¶78

c) Other just and equitable order may kindly be passed in the interest of justice.”

¶79

In reply to Statement of Objection filed by the bank, the Applicants have filed the rejoinder. However, said rejoinder of the Applicants

¶80

(APK)

¶81

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 11 of 19

¶82

is only by way of denial to the submission made in the Statement of Objection filed by the Bank However said rejoinder appears to file without considering the documents filed by the defendants and hence the said rejoinder cannot be considered while deciding the SA. The said rejoinder appears to have been filed only for prolonging and protecting the matter.

¶83

Heard the arguments advanced by the Advocates on behalf of both the sides, perused the records and went through the written notes of arguments and observed as under:

¶84

I could note the following striking points to consider the claim of the Applicant.

¶85

(i) Delegation of power by the Tahsildar, Beed to the Mandal Adhikari for taking possession of the property

¶86

(ii) Non-compliance of uploading the terms of sale on the website of the bank.

¶87

(iii) Registration of charge with CERSAI

¶88

(iv) Authority to bid on behalf of the bank.

¶89

(v) Penal interest charged by the bank is against the terms of the loan contract.

¶90

(vi) Limitation

¶91

A consistent view is seen to have been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that when the DM passes an order directing the Tahsildar to execute the order, it is beyond comprehension as to how the Naib Tahsildar can direct the Talathi to execute the order,

¶92

(APK)

¶93

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 12 of 19

¶94

thus the sub-delegation is against the law holding the field. It would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Division bench of the Bombay High Court in the matters of

¶95

(a) Punjab National Bank V. State of Maharashtra.

¶96

(b) AU Small Finance Bank V.State of Maharashtra

¶97

¶98

In view of the above the authorisation is unsupported by the sanction of law thus the measures taken by the respondents is against the SARFAESI Act, the Rules and the law holding the field. Therefore I have no hesitation in concluding that the measures taken by the bank are not as per the SARFAESI Act and thus the measures taken have to be set aside. It is also seen from the record that the Naib Tahsildar has also directed the Talathi to be at the actual site with police aid, which is against the Act and the Rules and vitiates the process, thus point No.1 is answered accordingly. Each and every provision contained in the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed, are necessary to be followed by the secured creditor. When Rule 8(7) of the SARFAESI Rules peremptorily mandates the secured creditor – bank to upload the detailed terms and conditions of sale on its website, it is the obligatory duty of the respondents to place on record the documents to satisfy this Tribunal about the discharge of their duty. Further the notice of sale has not been affixed as mandated under Rule 8(7) of the Rules of 2002. As a serious objection has been taken by the Applicants in the SA, it was the duty of the bank to file one and all documents showing the discharge of

¶99

(APK)

¶100

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 13 of 19

¶101

statutory duty cast on them.

¶102

I have gone through the reply to the SA and the written note submitted by the respondents and have not seen that any documents have been filed to counter the objection. Therefore it is clear that the bank has not complied with the mandate of law and the action of sale of the property conducted on 10/12/2019 under sale notice dated 20/11/2019 is void, resultantly the process and the steps taken by the respondents are declared as illegal. It has been ruled in many judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when manner of doing a particular act is given under the special statute, the financial institution – respondents were under statutory obligation to discharge the duties accordingly. Any act done contrary thereto is forbidden. This principle has not been followed by the respondents therefore the purchase of the property of the Applicants by the bank in its name is void.

¶103

It is further seen that the bank has failed in its duty to follow section 13(5-A) of the SARFAESI Act. Further the Managing Committee of the bank has on 4/11/2019 authorised its Chief Executive Officer and the General Manager to place a bid on behalf of the bank for purchasing the property of the Applicants for Rs.3,21,00,000/- in the event no bid is received. It is seen from the pleading of the Applicant and the document filed at Exh-E that the managing committee of the bank conferring the powers to purchase the property of the applicants, on the Chief Executive Officer (delegatee) of the bank. However he has further delegated his powers to the Branch Manager – Anil Parlikar (sub-delegatee) as is

¶104

(APK)

¶105

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 14 of 19

¶106

seen from authority letter dated 7/12/2019 on page 26 (translation at page 139) of the compilation filed by the respondents, therefore the participation of the Branch Manager in the bid process is void. Further sale deed No.727/2020 dated 25/2/2020, executed in the name of the bank (purchaser), is against the SARFAESI Act and Contract Act.

¶107

The respondent’s narration that they have followed SARFAESI Act is not enough till they file the relevant documents, showing the compliance of their duties and responsibilities as per the SARFAESI Act. I have gone through the file and found that the respondents have not followed the regulations governing their statutory right. Therefore, the findings cannot be recorded in their favour. Considering section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden of proving the facts relating to the compliance of their statutory duties is on the respondents. However, the respondents have filed to discharge their duty. Likewise, section 103 of Indian Evidence Act casts a burden of proving a particular fact on the respondents who wish this Tribunal to believe its existence. However, no proof has been filed on record to discharge the said duty. In view of the above I have no hesitation in concluding that the respondents have failed to prove their defence and the claim filed by the Applicants is accepted.

¶108

Further when there is a point raised about the non-registration of the charge with the CERSAI under SARFAESI Act by the Applicants, the respondents have not stated the details of registration, if any, in their Say filed at Exh-7. It is necessary for the respondents to follow

¶109

(APK)

¶110

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 15 of 19

¶111

the fundamental principle of pleading that they need to state material facts with particulars till then any document is not proved. I have gone through the reply of the respondents to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the SA where no details of registration of charge are given. Therefore the respondents have no right to construct the building without foundation and I conclude that the measures reported to be taken by respondents are not in conformity of Act.

¶112

The respondents should have filed on record the documents for overcoming the challenge of the Applicants in para 21. However, no rebuttal and no documents placed on record by the respondents leads me to conclude that the measures taken are not as per law. I have also gone through the sale certificate which has to be under Rule 9(6) and should be in the format as prescribed in Appendix V. However, the respondents have on page 17 (translation filed at page 133) mentioned to have purchased the machinery as described in therein. It is observed that the translated copy of the sale certificate does not match with the original sale certificate in vernacular language. Further the description of the properties in the sale notice and the sale certificate are different. Therefore, the certificate issued is not as per the sale notice dated 18/11/2019 filed at page-33. In view of the above the sale certificate is set aside and the registration of the sale deed dated 25/2/2020 is declared to be void. Further, I have no hesitation in recording that the authorised officer of the respondent No.1 has not followed the process of law in completing the action and measures taken under SARFAESI Act. Accordingly point Nos.(ii) to (iv) are decided.

¶113

(APK) (S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 16 of 19

¶114

I have also verified as to whether the charging of interest is as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bank of India V.Ravindra. The respondents have not brought to my notice that they have not charged penal interest and that interest has been capitalised. It is apparent that the claim raised in the demand notice and the claim raised in the dispute are different. The Applicants have made a serious charge against the respondents by filing a counter claim therein. Therefore, the enquiry into the fraudulent entries made and debited by the bank on 30/03/2015 and 31/03/2015, are required to be adjudicated. It is further strange to notice that an amount of Rs.62,50,000/- has been credited by the bank to patch up their misdeeds. Further entry dated 11/05/2017 for Rs.15,46,696/- under the head of penalty, has also been illegally debited to the loan account of the Applicants, is also a matter of enquiry in the counter claim. Therefore, the calculations of the liability seem to be not as per the rule of law and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and point No.(v) stands decided accordingly and the bank is expected to rework on the statement of account till then I have no hesitation in concluding that the liability shown to be payable by the Applicants is not as per the loan contract. Point No.(v) is decided accordingly.

¶115

I have taken the survey of facts from the SA and the written statement filed by the respondents, when it is realised that the SA filed is within limitation from the date of the respondents registering the Sale Deed with the Sub Registrar Office, Beed, on 25/02/2020 i.e. the date when the applicants got knowledge followed by the

¶116

(APK)

¶117

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 17 of 19

¶118

extension of limitation by Hon’ble Supreme Court due to Covid-19 Pandemic in Suo moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 in view of the Securitisation Act, 2002. Further, the SA is shown to be within limitation from 26/04/2022, when the bank decided to sell the property to Ashok Chandmal Lodha, and he himself contacted Kailas Chandak - applicant No.3 herein over his cellphone and informed that he is purchasing the property of the firm. In view of the above, the SA is within limitation and point No. (vi) is decided accordingly.

¶119

The mediation took place in the matter and the Bank contended that more than Rs 10 crores are due but were agreeable to settle the matter at Rs 7.50 crores. Borrowers were ready to pay Rs 3.42 crores (amount at which property was acquired by Bank) and another Rs 1.25 Crores. After negotiation Bank indicated Rs 6.50 crores and party Rs 5.00 crores.

¶120

The amount of Rs 10 crore calculated by bank is not correct figure as they are calculating interest on Rs 3.42 crores also which they must have adjusted in the account. The Tribunal is of the opinion that a figure between Rs 5.25 crores to 5.50 crores is reasonable if paid on or before 30th September 2024. Let the bank positively consider the same as their action under securitisation are not maintainable.

¶121

O R D E R

¶122

A. Securitization Application No.200 of 2020 stands allowed.

¶123

B. All the actions of the Bank under securitization including 13(2),

¶124

(APK)

¶125

(S.A. Nos. 200/2022) Page 18 of 19

¶126

13(4) and sale are set aside but the mortgage is declared as valid and bank will be at liberty to issue fresh 13(2) notices.

¶127

C The Tribunal is of the opinion that a figure between Rs 5.25 crores to 5.50 crores is reasonable if paid on or before 30th September 2024. Let the bank positively consider the same as their action under securitisation are not maintainable.

¶128