Dismissed

Karia and Sons and Anr. v. Thane Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Nagpur

DRT3 Jan 2024SA/251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In IA No.11/2024, the Division Bench dismissed an intervention application to implead new applicants. In IA No.3567/2024, the Bench dismissed an interim application for a stay of possession and restraint of the respondent bank, finding the applicants were aware of the loan and mortgage based on their admissions in the parent matter.

What did the court decide?

Application for impleadment and application for stay of possession dismissed.

Karia and Sons and Anr. versus Thane Janta Sahakari Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

03/01/2024	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *I.A. No. 11/2024 & IA No.3567/2023* in *SA 251 of 2023* *Karia And Sons And Anr Vs Thane* *Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Nagpur*	Next date
		Advocate appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Rajesh Nagory i/b Mrs. Sanjana G. appeared for the Respondent. IA No.11/2024
		1. The present IA has been filed by Interveners for impleadment in the present SA as Applicants. 2. The Interveners are directed to file their separate SA. The IA filed by the Interveners in the present SA is not acceptable thus, the same is hereby dismissed. I.A. No.3567/2023 3. By way of the present IA, the Applicants prayed to stay the effect and operation of the order dt.23/10/2019 and 23/10/2023 passed by Ld. MM and restrain the Respondent to take physical
		possession of the property i.e. Flat
		No.203, 2^ndFloor, New Jaldarshan CHS

¶2

	Ltd., Perry Cross Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050 (hereinafter referred to as the “property in question”).
4.	Ld. Counsel for the Applicants contends that the Applicants never mortgage the
	property in question to the Respondent herein.
5.	He also states that the alleged mortgage
	is done by the Father of the Applicant
	No.2 that too without any knowledge of the Applicants, thus, he submits that the
	same is not applicable upon the Applicants. He also submits that all the
	property document is lying with the Union Bank of India and with them, the
	Applicants have already settle the
	matter, therefore, he contends that the said mortgage with the Respondent No.1
	is not sustainable and thus, the
	Respondent No.1 may be restrained from taking physical possession of property in question.
6.	Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1
	vehemently opposed the present I.A. and
	submits that the Applicants are well
	aware about the loan as well as creation of the mortgage and now to avoid the

¶3

recovery, the Applicants are denying the mortgage. He also submits that the Applicants are raising frivolous objections, thus he submits that the present I.A. may be dismissed. 7. Considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record. 8. After going through the record of the S.A, I find merit in the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Applicants are well aware about the loan and creation of the mortgage in the present matter. 9. In para V ‘O’ of the present SA, the Applicants themselves admitted the loan and raised objection that one of the Employee of the Bank has misguided for the loan. The relevant para is extracted herein below:

¶4

“It is submitted by the Applicants herein above, that one of the employees of the Respondent Bank namely Mr. Surve of Respondent Bank extorted huge sums of monies from the Applicants under the garb of sanctioning credit facility/loan to the Applicants. It is submitted that on 23.01.2015, soon after the sanctioning of the aggregate

¶5

loan amount of Rs. 2.00
Crores, the Applicants were
forced to make payment of Rs.
31,65,653/- through RTGS to a
designated account of one Ms.
Deepa Santosh Palkar and SKS
Trading TJSB H I502. It is
submitted that the said persons
were neither known to the
Applicants not the relationship of the said persons with the Mr.
Surve or the Respondent Bank.
Mr. Surve had promised to
indemnify the Applicants in
case of any default in the
accounts of the Applicants.
Based on the said
representations by Mr. Surve,
the same was transferred to
Ms. Deepa Santosh Palkar and
SKS Trading TJSB H I502.
However, the amount of Rs.
31,6,653/- was used as
kickbacks for sanctioning the
loans to an extent that the bank
never conducted due diligence
with respect to the
title/ownership of the Suit
Property. Moreover, the loan
amount of Rs. 2.00 Cr. was
sanctioned in favour of the Applicant by the employees of
the Bank without inspecting
the title deed of the Suit
Property or conducting due
diligence. There was no
equitable mortgage created in
respect of the House Property
which now is being claimed by
the Respondent Bank.”
(emphasis provided)

¶6

In view of the above, prima facia , I do not find any merit in the present I.A. and hence, the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.

¶7

P.O. DRT-I

¶8

SP/-44

Karia and Sons and Anr. v. Thane Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karia and Sons and Anr. v. Thane Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Nagpur

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

Idbi Bank versus Sana

Idbi Bank versus Mahesh

Eagle Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

Idbi Bank versus Atul Prakash Palande

Nirmala Krishna Sharma versus Canara Bank

M S Prabhu Construction and Ors. versus Canara Bank