Dismissed

Mr George Fernandes Alias Marshal G Fernandes v. State Bank of India

DRT25 Jan 2024SA/29/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant filed an IA to restrain the Respondent Bank from taking further steps under a sale notice containing a typographical error in the date and alleged missing details. The Court rejected the pleas, noting the Applicant admitted the error and details were available on the Bank's website.

What did the court decide?

The prayer in the interim application to restrain the Respondent from further steps was rejected.

Mr George Fernandes Alias Marshal G Fernandes versus State Bank… — Property and Title | DRT (2024)

¶1

25/01/2024	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in SA No.29 of 2024* *Mr. Geroge Fernandes alias Marshal Geroge* *Fernandes & Anr. Vs. State Bank of India*	Next date
		Advocate Aarti S. appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Sachin Koli appeared for the Respondent. IA No.180/2024 1. Today the matter is listed for order on the present IA. 2. By way of the present IA, the Applicant is praying to restrain the Respondent from taking any further steps in furtherance of their act of notice dated 02.01.2023 (typo error it should have been 02.01.2024) in respect of the immovable property being “All the piece or parcel of land admeasuring 3650 sq. mts. or thereabouts, forming part of the larger property known as “UMLANTULO CUDO” also known as “UMALEM” consisting of two sub-divided plots viz Plot “A” (in the name of Marget Jyothi Fernandes alias Jyothi Marget Fernandes) and Plot “B” (in the name of Mr. Geroge Fernandes alias Marshal George Fernandes and Mrs. Margaret Jyothi Fernandes alias Jyothi Marget Fernandes), each admeasuring 1,8250 sq. mts. or thereabouts situated at Sirsaim, Bardez, earling falling within the local jurisdiction of

¶2

¶3

Registration Sub-District of Bardez, District North Goa, in the state of Goa and the said plot or property admeasuring 3, 650.00 sq. mts. or whereabouts is surveyed during the recent survey conducted for the purpose of records of rights for revenue village of Sirsaim, under New Survey No.5 Sub Division No.2 and being bounded as a whole as follows: on or towards the east Nallah, on or towards the west; by road, on or towards the North; by property belonging to Konkan Railway Corporation, on the south; by property bearing survey No.5/3 and 5/4” in furtherance to issuance of notice of sale dated 02.01.2023 (“properties in question”) and/or selling/releasing the said immovable property.

¶4

Ld. Counsel for the Applicants contended that there is a date is mentioned in 02.01.2023 instead of 02.01.2024 therefore, the entire sale notice is liable to be quashed. She also contended that details regarding the EMD and other details are also not mentioned in the sale notice, therefore, the said sale notice is liable to be quashed. Further, she submitted that the Applicant is ready to deposit the amount by selling one of the other property of the Applicants, thus, she stated that the Applicants may be allowed to deposit the dues of the Respondent Bank and Respondent may be

¶5

¶6

restrained from taking further steps as per the impugned sale notice.

¶7

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank objected on the present IA and submitted that the Applicants themselves admitted that it is a typographical error in the date of auction sale notice, therefore, the prayer of the Applicants for cancellation the auction proceeding on this ground, is not maintainable. He also submitted that the complete details of the sale notice is duly provided by the Respondent Bank in the website of the bank, and the said link has duly specified in the auction sale notice thus, he submitted that the present IA is liable to be dismissed.

¶8

Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶9

Admittedly, Applicants themselves stated that in the auction notice dated 02.01.2023, there is typo error it should have been 02.01.2024, and the said fact corroborated from the other facts as mentioned in the auction sale notice thus, the said objection of the Applicants has no merit.

¶10

Even otherwise, in the said sale notice, it is specifically mentioned that “for detailed terms and conditions of the sale, please refer to the link provided in State Bank of India, the Secured Creditor website www.sbi.co.in” . Therefore, the

¶11

¶12

Applicant was having complete opportunity to get all the information regarding the sale from the website of the Respondent Bank i.e. www.sbi.co.in. Thus, the objection of the Applicant that the detail has not been provided, is also not sustainable.

¶13

In view of the above, prima facie , I do not find any merit in the present IA and the same is hereby rejected.

¶14

¶15

DRT-I

¶16

Mr George Fernandes Alias Marshal G Fernandes v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr George Fernandes Alias Marshal G Fernandes v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Prashant Bharat

Mr. Jagadeesh Parmeshwar Naik alias Jagdish Parmeshwar Naik versus Citizen Credit Cooperative Bank Limited

Idbi Bank versus Mr Mahendra Bhandudas Khedkar

Mukeshbhai R Bhadiyadra versus Bank of Baroda

Idbi Bank versus Jitendra

State Bank of India versus M/S Aspire Designs