Dismissed

Sohan Lal v. Bank of Baroda

DRT29 Nov 2024SA/231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants filed an SA under the SARFAESI Act claiming ownership via unregistered sale agreements. The Tribunal held that since the Applicants failed to produce the original lease deed deposited with the Bank and their agreements were sham documents intended to stop recovery, the application lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed as it had no merit; the Applicants' claim of possession was rejected.

Sohan Lal versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ITEM NO.43

¶3

SA/231/2024 SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS

¶4

29.11.2024 Argued by: Mr. Ashok Malik Advocate for the Applicants (SA) Mr. Vishal Ahuja Advocate for the Respondent Bank

¶5

Sh. Sohan Lal and another (Applicants) have filed this Securitization Application under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act') against Bank of Baroda and Others (Respondents).

¶6

The facts as borne out from the record are that vide lease-deed dated 14.07.2006, Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh had leased out Plot No. 707-A, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh, measuring 250 sq. yards to M/s A.K. Industries owned by Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal for 99 years. Bank of Baroda had sanctioned some credit facilities to M/s Asmi Industries through Smt. Richa Aggarwal (Respondent No. 3). To secure the same Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal had created security interest in respect of this plot in favour of the Bank. Later, on 22.10.2019, Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal executed a general Power of Attorney, will, affidavit and agreement to sell in favour of Sh. Anurag Sharma (Respondent No. 2). Thereafter, on 30.06.2023, Sh. Anurag Sharma entered into an agreement to sell in respect of this plot in favour of the Applicants. Since, Smt. Richa Aggarwal could not make the repayment of the loan Bank of Baroda (BOB) initiated the SARFAESI action and issued the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. Applicants in the SA have alleged that on the coming to know of the publication of the possession notice, they filed the present SA from restraining the Bank from taking the possession.

¶7

SA/231/2024 SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS

¶8

¶9

Respondent Bank, in reply to the SA, has alleged that Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal had created security interest in favour of the Bank. Accordingly, Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal and his son could not sell the property. Even if they have sold that property, this is subject to the security interest created in favour of the Bank.

¶10

The applicants had filed CWP 25701-2024 (O&M) in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing possession notice dated 09.02.2024 issued u/s 13(4) of the Act and letter dated 29.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2, pursuant to order dated 01.07.2024, passed by DM, U.T. Chandigarh. Vide order dated 13.10.2024, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the Writ by granting liberty to file appropriate application before this Tribunal, in respect of grievance as raised in Writ Petition.

¶11

Sh. Ashok Malik, Counsel for Applicants, drawing my attention to the sale agreement argued that Applicants have purchased the secured asset by sale agreement. They were put in possession of the property. Presently, they are in possession. They have made part payment of Rs.50 lakh against the total same price of Rs.260 lakh to the seller. Accordingly, for all intents and purposes they are owners of the property. It is also argued that Applicants have also filed a criminal complaint to S.H.O. Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh dated 12.04.2024 against Sh. Anurag Sharma and his wife for Criminal breach of trust, Cheating and Fraud.

¶12

6. Per contra, Sh. Vishal Ahuja, Counsel for the respondent bank has argued that Applicants have not placed on the record any document of title in their favour. The agreements are not registered. A person does not become the owner on the basis of agreement to sell. Counsel for respondent bank further submitted that in case the Applicants had purchased the secured asset on the basis of the agreement to sell, they should have also obtained the original lease deed from Sh. Sandeep Bansal, who is the legal heir and son of late Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal. In fact, Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal had deposited these title deeds with the respondent bank in 2020. The alleged agreements are sham documents created just to thwart the recovery process initiated by respondent bank.

¶13

SA/231/2024 SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS 3

¶14

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶15

As per the material placed on record, vide lease-deed dated 14.07.2006, the Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh, had leased out Plot No.707-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh to Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal, (respondent’s Annexure-A-1). Applicants have alleged that on 30.06.2023, Sh. Anurag Sharma had entered into an agreement to sell in favour of Sh. Sohan Lal and Sh. Bhupinder Kumar for sale of Plot No.707-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. Applicants have also alleged that Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal, previously executed the GPA, Will, Affidavit and Agreement to Sell, in favour of Sh. Anurag Sharma. Admittedly, the agreement to sell is not registered. In case, the Applicants had purchased the possessory rights from Sh. Anurag Sharma, who previously purchased it from Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal, they should also have obtained the original lease deed from him. However, the original lease deed was never obtained by them. It appears that Applicants in collusion with the respondents, i.e. Sh. Anurag Sharma, Smt. Richa Aggarwal and Sh. Sandeep Bansal, have filed this SA with an intention to stop the recovery by Bank of Baroda. From the material on the record, it is clear that Sh. Jagdish Lal Bansal, had created security interest in respect of property by depositing the original deed in his favour. There is no merit in the present SA and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶16

A copy of this Final Order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

¶17

(A.S. Narang) Pronounced in the Open Tribunal Presiding Officer Dated: 29.11.2024 DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)

Sohan Lal v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Lal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usman C versus South Indian Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Chandni v Shah

Icici Bank Limited versus Mahavir Lime Industries

Hdfc Bank versus Soleman Sk and Anr.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sri.Nagaraj Makanur

Mrs Babita Shailesh Shetty versus the Model Co-Operative Bank Ltd.