Dismissed

Lakhpati Arora v. India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd.

DRT3 May 2024SA/355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitisation application filed by a purchaser claiming to be a bonafide buyer of mortgaged properties. The court held the applicant failed to conduct legal due diligence, was not a bonafide purchaser, and since the properties were already sold, restoration of possession could not be granted.

What did the court decide?

S.A. No. 355 of 2022 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending I.A.s disposed of.

Lakhpati Arora versus India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 25.11.2022 Registered on : 02.12.2022 Decided on : 03.05.2024 Duration : Y M D 01 05 09

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.355 OF 2022

¶3

Mr Lakhpati Arora S/o. Late Shri Balbir Singh, Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ: Business Having Address at: R-304, 1^st Floor, Greater Kailash – 1, Delhi – 11048 represented through Constituted Attorney Mr Vijay Ramanand Mishra.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd.) Having Office at: 304, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Corporate Park, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013, through its Authorized Officer Mr Harshwardhan Kadam.

¶7

Mr Shekhar Sumant Dadarkar, Sole Proprietor of M/s. S.D. Constructions, Adult India Inhabitant, Having addresses at Shop No.1, Poorti Vihar CHS Ltd., New Shastri Nagar, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400 104.

¶8

Religare Finvest Limited, having their registered office at: 2^nd floor, Rajlok Building, 24, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 and having their

¶9

Page 1 of 22

¶10

Corporate Office at: 9^th Floor, Paras Twin Towers, Tower-III, Sector 54, Gulf Course Rd. Gurgaon – 122002.

¶11

Sheerang Gangadhar Vaze, Having his address at: 7/82, Ramkrishna Nagar, Khar, Mumbai - 400 052. …Defendants

¶12

APPEARANCES For the Applicant : Ms Pooja Shah i/b M/s. R J Law - Advocates

¶13

For Defendant No.1 : Mr Rajesh Nagori, Mr Vinay Deshpande and Ms Shobha Chavan i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. – Advocates

¶14

For Defendants 2 to 4 : None.

¶15

Shri Deepak M Thakkar Presiding Officer

¶16

HEARING PRONOUNCEMENT

¶17

: 2^nd April 2024 : 30^th April 2024

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

(1) The applicant claims to be a bonafide purchaser of four shops and two commercial units called into question the secured creditor’s action and measures under the SARFAESI Act read with the Rules.

¶20

(2) The 2^nd defendant is the builder, developers, principal borrower, and mortgagor, 3^rd defendant

¶21

Page 2 of 22

¶22

is the original lender or the assignor, 1^st defendant is the assignee and the secured creditor. The locus or the status of the 4^th defendant is not known. However, no relief is claimed by the applicant against the 4^th defendant.

¶23

The factual matrix of the case:

¶24

(3) The 2^nd defendant approached the 3^rd defendant to grant financial assistance through loan against property on 22^nd January 2009. The 3^rd defendant sanctioned loan against property (i.e. four shops and two commercial units) of Rs.2,52,60,0000/repayable in 120 EMIs of Rs.4,55,148/- with floating interest of 18% per annum. On 23^rd January 2009, the 2^nd defendant accepted and confirmed the terms and conditions of the sanction. On 30^th January 2009, the 2^nd defendant signed and executed the loan and security documents favouring the 3^rd defendant. On 30^th January 2009, the 2^nd defendant addressed a letter to the 3^rd defendant confirming the mortgage creation relating to four shops and two commercial units by delivering the original title deeds. Paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iv) of the letter of confirmation dated 30^th January 2009 reproduced below:

¶25

(i) That the Borrower(s) has/have a clear and marketable title to the Property/am/are owner/co-owners of the Property and there is no

¶26

Page 3 of 22

¶27

litigation or any other judicial proceeding pending or threatened against the Borrower(s) in any Court, Tribunal, Forum, Quasijudicial body etc. and is not subject to any charge, lien, lis pendens. The Borrower(s) has/have not created any lien, gift or trust on the Property. The Borrower(s) shall indemnify RFL on account of any defective title of the said Property.

¶28

(ii) That the Borrower(s) is/are in peaceful, vacant and unencumbered possession of the Property. However, where the Property has already been leased or has been given on rent, the Borrower(s) undertake(s) that all rents payable under the Lease Agreement/Rent Agreement/License Agreement, the conditions contained therein and the obligations binding on the lesse/tenant have been paid, performed and observed respectively till the commencement of the mortgage and shall continue to be so paid, performed and observed during the continuance of the Lease Agreement/Rent Agreement/Licence Agreement. The Borrower(s) undertake(s) to indemnify RFL against all claims sustained by reason of non-payment of rent or the non-performance or non-observance of the conditions and obligations mentioned hereinabove.

¶29

(iii) That the borrower(s) shall not, during the tenure of the facility amount, without the prior written permission of RFL, which permission maybe withheld by RFL for any reason deemed litin its sole discretion, do any of the followings acts with respect to the Property or any part thereof.

¶30

(a) Let out or give on license the Property or any part thereof;

¶31

(b) Sell or enter into any agreement to sell;

¶32

(c) Surrender possession or otherwise alienate the Property or any part thereof;

¶33

(d) Create any lien, charge or encumbrance on the property or any part thereof;

¶34

Page 4 of 22

¶35

(e) Alter its nature any/or character;

¶36

(f) Amalgamate or merge the Property or any part thereof with any other adjacent Property;

¶37

(g) Create any easementary right;

¶38

(h) Execute any agreement and/or arrangement or in any manner arise at any oral/written undertaking with any kind party including but not limited to any RFL, financial institution, local body, government, whether state or central, or any other judicial or quasijudicial body.

¶39

(4) The 2^nd defendant gave an undertaking to the 3^rd defendant which states that the 3^rd defendant shall release the mortgaged property only upon the repayment of the entire loan.

¶40

(5) On 21^st December 2013, during the validity and subsistence of the mortgage, the 2^nd defendant with the knowledge and consent of the 3^rd defendant, sold the four shops and two commercial units to the applicant. The 2^nd defendant, by two registered agreements dated 21^st December 2013 sold the mortgaged properties to the applicant. According to the applicant, he purchased and acquired four shops for the aggregate consideration of Rs.3.25 crores and two commercial units for Rs.1.34 crores. On 18^th February 2014, the applicant addressed two letters to the Secretary, Tilak Nagar Sunview Cooperative Housing Society (for short, ‘the Society’). The applicant delivered these notices on 21^st

¶41

Page 5 of 22

¶42

March 2014. On 18^th April 2014, 23^rd September 2015, and 29^th December 2015, the applicant addressed letters to the Society to transfer the shares relating to the four shops and two commercial units in his name. However, the Society did not transfer. On 19^th January 2016, the Society issued a notice informing the committee members of their meeting on 22^nd January 2016.

¶43

(6) On 30^th September 2016, the 3^rd defendant classified the borrower’s account as an NPA. On 25^th October 2016, the 3^rd defendant’s authorized officer issued the 13(2) notice calling upon the 2^nd defendant to pay Rs.2,66,72,036.57 outstanding as of 24^th October 2016 within sixty days. The 2^nd defendant did not respond to the demand notice. (7) The S.A. refers to arbitration petition no.994 of 2016 filed by Siddharth Nagar Ekta Suprabhat Coop Housing Society Ltd versus M/s. S.D. Construction (the 2^nd defendant) & Anr. In September 2017, the applicant filed an affidavit before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in arbitration petition no.994 of 2016 which refers to the City Civil Court’s Suit Stamp No.1035 of 2017 filed by the applicant against the M/s. S.D. Construction (the 2^nd defendant) & Ors. On 23^rd September 2017, the applicant filed a police

¶44

Page 6 of 22

¶45

complaint against the 2^nd defendant. In the police complaint, the applicant records that he derived knowledge of the 2^nd defendant creating mortgage of one of the properties with the 3^rd defendant. In September 2017, the applicant moved a notice of motion requesting the City Civil Court to prevent the original lender from dispossessing the applicant from four shops (on the ground floor) and two commercial premises (on the 1^st floor) of the Society without due process of law. On 6^th October 2017, the applicant addressed a letter to the Society stating that he received a copy of the NOC/permission dated 18^th February 2009 to mortgage four shops and two commercial units. The applicant requested the Society to confirm. On 1^st November 2017, the police authorities registered an FIR against the 2^nd defendant. (8) On 13^th October 2020, the 2^nd defendant addressed a letter to the 3^rd defendant informing it to settle the two loan accounts by repaying it and collecting the original documents. On 19^th October 2020, the 2^nd defendant addressed an email to the 3^rd defendant asking for the procedure to close the loan account. On 25^th November 2020, the 2^nd defendant addressed a letter to the authorized officer of the 1^st defendant referring to loan account no.9966 (last four digits) to settle for Rs.1

¶46

Page 7 of 22

¶47

crores. The 2^nd defendant states that being a senior citizen and unable to complete the procedure, he authorized the applicant to settle the loan account and confirm having sold the mortgaged property to the applicant to clear the loan from his pocket. The 2^nd defendant requested to settle the matter and provide the original documents to the applicant.

¶48

(9) On 11^th August 2022, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order under Section 14 in Case No.211/SA/2017 granting assistance to the 1^st defendant to take physical possession of the four shops and two commercial units (the secured assets). On 5^th November 2022, the applicant addressed a letter to the advocate commissioner requesting her not to take physical possession. On 8^th November 2022, the applicant addressed a letter to the police authorities requesting them not to dispossess him

¶49

(10) On 25^th November 2022, the applicant presented the Securitisation Application and prayed for the following orders and reliefs:

¶50

(a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the action/s and measure/s taken by the Respondent No.1 are not as per the rules and provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Rules framed thereunder and, the actions and measures be declared as null and void.

¶51

Page 8 of 22

¶52

(b) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to declare the Impugned Order dated 11^{t h} August 2022 passed by the Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3^{r d} Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in Case No.211/SA/2017, is not as per the rules and provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and may be quashed and set aside.

¶53

(c) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the action of Respondent No.1 dated 09^th November 2022 of taking forcible physical possession of the said Properties on the strength of the impugned order dated 11^{t h} August, 2022 is not as per the rules and provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the action and measures be declared as illegal, null and void.

¶54

(d) This Honorable Tribunal may kindly be pleased to restore the physical and vacant possession of the Applicants in the premises situated at Shop Nos.1,2,3 and 4 on Ground Floor and Commercial Unit No.1 and 2 on the First Floor, B-Wing, Sun View Building, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089 to the Applicants, in accordance with law.

¶55

(e) This Honorable Tribunal may kindly be pleased to permanently restrain Respondent No.1, their officers, agents, servants and/or anyone claiming by or under them by an order and injunction from selling/dealing/alienating/creating third party interest with the property viz Shop Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 on Ground Floor, and Commercial Unit No.1 and 2 on the First Floor, or part thereof, in the B-Wing, in Sun View Building, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089.

¶56

(f) Cost of this Application.

¶57

(g) Any other and further relief which may be deems fit in the facts

¶58

Page 9 of 22

¶59

and circumstances of the present case.

¶60

(11) I.A. No.2586 of 2022: The applicant moved the Interlocutory Application to prevent the 1^st defendant from taking physical possession of the secured assets. On 24^th November 2022, the applicant’s counsel moved the praecipe stating that the applicant lost the possession on 9^th November 2022.

¶61

(12) I.A. No.2838 of 2022 and I.A. No.2839 of 2022: On 12^th December 2022, the applicant, through the counsel moved the praecipe alongwith I.A. No.2838 of 2022 and I.A. No.2839 of 2022. On 22^nd December 2022, the Tribunal passed an order stating that the applicant’s counsel failed to satisfy that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. The Tribunal in the order dated 22^nd December 2022 recorded that the applicant’s counsel could not answer the query under Section 55(1)(c) of the Transfer of Property Act. On 13^th January 2023, the Tribunal rejected the grant of ad-interim relief. The applicant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.27 of 2023 before the Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai. On 5^th September 2023, the Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai stated that the 1^st defendant already sold a portion of the property much earlier and one of the property was sold on that day. The Hon’ble

¶62

Page 10 of 22

¶63

DRAT held that the 1^st defendant sold the properties and therefore, the Interlocutory Applications filed in S.A. outlived the purposes. It further recorded that the applicant will have to move or take steps to set aside the sale. The Hon’ble DRAT expedited the hearing of the present S.A.

¶64

(13) I.A. No.2565 of 2023: The applicant moved I.A. No.2565 of 2023 seeking the Tribunal’s leave to amend the S.A. On 2^nd January 2024, the Tribunal disposed of I.A. No.2565 of 2023. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2^nd January 2024, the applicant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.18 of 2024 before the Hon’ble DRAT. On 20^th February 2024, the Hon’ble DRAT extended the time to dispose of the S.A. within three months.

¶65

(14) The 1^st defendant filed its reply affidavit dated 12^th January 2023 in I.A. No.2838 of 2023 and reply affidavit dated 19^th December 2023 in I.A. No.2565 of 2023. The 1^st defendant also filed reply affidavit (exhibit-12) to the S.A. It is the 1^st defendant’s case that the 3^rd defendant sanctioned the loan on 22^nd January 2009. The 1^st defendant signed and executed the loan and security documents on 30^th January 2009. The 2^nd defendant created an equitable mortgage by delivering and depositing the constructive delivery

¶66

Page 11 of 22

¶67

of the title deeds to the 3^rd defendant’s officer concerning shop nos.1 to 4 on the ground floor and commercial units 1 and 2 on the 1^st floor B- Wing of the Society. On 30^th September 2016, the 3^rd defendant classified the 2^nd defendant’s account as an NPA. On 25^th October 2016, the 13(2) notice was issued. The 3^rd defendant published the 13(2) notice on 25^th October 2016. On 28^th September 2019, the 3^rd defendant assigned the debt and securities to the 1^st defendant. The applicant purchased the secured assets under the registered agreement dated 21^st December 2013 much after the mortgage creation. The applicant’s rights, if any are subject to the mortgage. The applicant failed to carry out due diligence before the purchasing the secured assets.

¶68

(15) The 1^st defendant in its reply affidavit dated 19^th December 2023 opposed the grant of relief in I.A. No.2565 of 2023. The applicant challenged the auction notice dated 6^th December 2022 and 12^th January 2023 relating to shop nos.1 to 4 on the ground floor of the Society. The 1^st defendant issued sale certificate on 3^rd October 2023 relating to units 1 and 2 on the 1^st floor of the Society favouring (i) Mr Bherulal U. Jain, (ii) Mr Tariq Jagmag and, (iii) Mrs Anuradha Kulkarni Jagmag.

¶69

Page 12 of 22

¶70

The 1^st defendant challenged the applicant on the ground of limitation. As regards shop nos. 1 to 4, the 1^st defendant issued sale certificate on 23^rd January 2023. Therefore, the applicant’s presentation on 7^th November 2023 was beyond the period of forty-five days. The applicant did not apply to condone the delay.

¶71

(16) The applicant is guilty of suppressing the fact and therefore, the 1^st defendant requests the Tribunal to dismiss the S.A. with costs. The 1^st defendant states that there is no challenge to the measure under Section 13(4) and therefore, the S.A. be rejected. Since the authorized officer is not joined as a party, to the S.A. it be dismissed for nonjoinder.

¶72

(17) On 22^nd December 2022, this Tribunal rejected the grant of ad-interim relief in I.A. No.2838 of 2022 stating that the applicant failed to satisfy that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. The applicant’s counsel did not answer the query raised by the Tribunal under Section 55(1)(c) of the Transfer of Property Act. On 13^th January 2023, this Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to show legal due diligence before entering into agreement dated 21^st December 2013. The Hon’ble DRAT, by its order dated 13^th January 2023, did not interfere with this Tribunal’s order

¶73

Page 13 of 22

¶74

dated 22^nd December 2022. The 3^rd defendant filed a complaint with Tilak Nagar Police Station under Sections 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The police authority registered an FIR C.R. No.328 of 2017 and converted it into C.R. No.84 of 2017. During the investigation, the 3^rd defendant’s officer deposited the following original documents with the police authorities named (i) no objection certificate dated 10^th February 2009 issued by the 2^nd defendant for shops 1 to 4 (ground floor) and shops 1 and 2 (first floor) for mortgage creation, (ii) two no objection certificates issued by the Society on 18^th February 2009 for shops 1 to 4 (ground floor) and shops 1 and 2 (first floor), (iii) original registered agreement dated 27^th January 2006 between the 2^nd defendant in its capacity as developer and as owner relating shops 1 to 4 (ground floor) duly registered with the sub-Registrar of Assurances bearing registration no.BDR-13-763/06 (iv) original registration agreement dated 27^th January 2006 between the 2^nd defendant in its capacity as developer and as owner relating to shops 1 and 2 (first floor) duly registered with the sub-Registrar of Assurances bearing registration no.BDR-13764/06, (v) no objection certificate issued by ICICI Bank on 6^th February 2006, (vi) original loan

¶75

Page 14 of 22

¶76

application form, sanction letter dated 21^st January 2009, and (vii) original loan agreement no.28870. The 1^st defendant took further steps under Section 14 and procured the order.

¶77

(18) Based on the aforesaid facts, the parties proceeded to argue the case.

¶78

(19) On 10^th January 2024, the Tribunal fixed the matter for final hearing. On 17^th January 2024, at the request of the applicant, the Tribunal adjourned the matter for arguments. On 24^th January 2024 and 25^th January 2024, the Tribunal posted the matter for arguments on the next date. On 30^th January 2024, the applicant’s counsel submitted that the applicant preferred an Appeal and the matter was likely to be listed before the Hon’ble DRAT on 5^th February 2024. On 7^th February 2024, after recording the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal granted the last opportunity to the applicant to argue the case on the next date. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal listed the matter for final hearing on 14^th March 2024. On 14^th March 2024, the applicant requested the Tribunal to adjourn the case to 2^nd April 2024. On the adjourned day, the applicant’s counsel expressed her inability to argue as she did not carry her brief nor did she have instructions to

¶79

Page 15 of 22

¶80

argue the case. Despite granting the opportunity, the applicant’s counsel did not argue.

¶81

(20) The 1^st defendant’s counsel requested the Tribunal to consider its reply as the written submissions. Analysis and Findings:

¶82

(21) The applicant’s pleading in the S.A. neither established the case of a bonafide purchaser nor set up any case of legal due diligence. Sections 48 and 55(1)(b) and (c) are relevant in the present case reproduced below:

¶83

“48. Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immovable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of special contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created.

¶84

55. (1) (b) to produce to the buyer on his request for examination all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller’s possession or power;

¶85

(c) to answer to the best of his information all relevant questions put to him by the buyer in respect to the property or the title thereto;

¶86

(22) On 10^th February 2019, the 2^nd defendant in his capacity as builder and developer issued NOC to the 3^rd defendant to create mortgage relating to shops 1 to 4 (ground floor) and shops 1 and 2 (1^st floor). On 18^th February 2009, the Society issued two NOC’s relating to four shops (ground floor) and two shops (1^st floor). Notably, on 27^th January

¶87

Page 16 of 22

¶88

2006, the 2^nd defendant got the agreement for shops 1 to 4 (ground floor) registered with the sub-Registrar of Assurances under registration no.BDR-13-763/2006. The 2^nd defendant got the agreement dated 27^th January 2006 concerning shops 1 and 2 (1^st floor) registered with the subRegistrar of Assurances under registration no.BDR-13-764/2006. Therefore, the 2^nd defendant had no right to create further transfer of the same shops at different times. In short, Section 48 does not recognise co-existence of such rights. The rights created under the registered documents on 27^th January 2006 shall prevail. In the present case, the applicant failed to raise any requisition on title as contemplated under Section 55(1) (c). The applicant did not conduct search or placed report or issued any public notice to verify the title. The applicant is therefore, negligent in not conducting the legal due diligence which concludes the failure to raise requisition on title and the search with the sub-Registrar office. Notably, the instrument relating to shops 1 to 4 (ground floor) and shops 1 and 2 (1^st floor) is registered as discussed above. The applicant’s agreement is subsequent to the mortgage creation. The applicant purchased the secured asset almost eight years after the registration of the instrument

¶89

Page 17 of 22

¶90

dated 27^th January 2006. The applicant ought to have understood the Society’s indication avoiding to transfer the shares in his favour. The applicant addressed a letter on 18^th February 2014 and delivered to the Society on 21^st February 2014. The applicant did nothing for two months. On 18^th April 2014, the applicant wrote another letter. The applicant again did nothing for seventeen months. On 23^rd September 2015, the applicant issued a final request to the Society to transfer the shops. After more than three months, that is, on 29^th December 2015, the applicant wrote a letter to the Society to transfer the shares. The applicant placed on record the notice of the committee members' meeting. It is pertinent to note that the applicant did nothing from 23^rd January 2016 till September 2017. In September 2017, the applicant filed affidavit before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Arbitration Petition No.994 of 2016. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the applicant recorded that to protect his interest, he filed a Suit Stamp No.10345 of 2017 against the 2^nd defendant and Ors. before the City Civil Court. In September 2017, the applicant, through its constituted attorney, moved notice of motion seeking interim relief against the 3^rd defendant to

¶91

Page 18 of 22

¶92

prevent him from dispossessing him from four shops (ground floor) and two shops (1^st floor) of the Society. Despite knowledge and awareness, the applicant took no steps. The applicant filed police complaint on 23^rd September 2017 against the 2^nd defendant. The Police authority registered FIR on 1^st November 2017 against 2^nd defendant. The facts reveal the applicant’s negligence in not prosecuting the case diligently. Thus, the Tribunal opines that the applicant cannot be stated as a bonafide purchaser and rejects his narratives.

¶93

(23) Mortgage: The applicant failed to challenge the mortgage and seeks to quash and set aside the action and measures under the SARFAESI Act. In the absence of challenge to the mortgage, the applicant cannot succeed for the Tribunal to recognize him as a bonafide purchaser.

¶94

(24) SARFAESI Measures: The applicant cannot plead unawareness of the publication of the demand notice dated 25^th October 2016. The applicant derived knowledge in September 2017 that the 2^nd defendant defrauded him. The applicant filed police complaint on 23^rd September 2017. The applicant filed Suit Stamp No.10345 of 2017 against defendants 2, 3 and the Society relating to the secured assets. The applicant sought permanent injunction against the 3^rd defendant

¶95

Page 19 of 22

¶96

prohibiting it from dispossessing the applicant. On 25^th November 2020, the 2^nd defendant addressed a letter to the 1^st defendant’s authorized officer. By that letter, the 2^nd defendant authorized the applicant to settle the loan account. The 2^nd defendant recorded that the applicant shall clear the loan and liquidate the outstanding from his pocket. The applicant had in his power, possession and custody of the letter dated 25^th November 2020 which he placed on record. However, the applicant did not discuss about the contents of the letter in the S.A. The applicant failed to produce the certified copy of the Section 14 order dated 11^th August 2022. The applicant produced the certified copy of xerox copy (on pages 644 to 659). In paragraph 4 of the S.A, the applicant made no attempt to explain the limitation vis-à-vis the Section 14 order.

¶97

(25) The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s application to amend the S.A. for the reasons recorded therein. In Interlocutory Application No.2565 of 2023, the applicant admits that the 1^st defendant, by its letter dated 20^th February 2023 informed the applicant, through its counsel, about the sale of shops 1 to 4 (ground floor, B-Wing) favouring (i) Mr Bherulal U. Jain and (ii) Mr Tariq Jagmag and, (iii) Mrs Anuradha Kulkarni Jagmag. Therefore,

¶98

Page 20 of 22

¶99

the applicant’s Interlocutory Application No.2565 of 2023 presented on 7^th November 2023 was beyond forty-five days.

¶100

(26) In paragraph 11 (I.A. No.2565 of 2023), the applicant admits that the 1^st defendant, by its letter dated 28^th October 2023 informed the applicant, through counsel, about the sale of commercial units 1 and 2 (1^st floor, B-Wing). There is no challenge to the (i) sale certificate dated 23^rd January 2023 relating to shops 1 to 4 (ground floor, B-Wing) and (ii) sale certificate dated 3^rd October 2023 relating to shops 1 and 2 (1^st floor, B-Wing). Understood thus, the authorized officer sold the four shops on the ground floor and two shops on the 1^st floor to the purchasers. The applicant failed to bring the purchasers on record. The applicant failed to ask for any relief to set aside the sale, sale certificate, etc. In the absence of the auction purchaser, no relief can be granted to the applicant. Be that as it may, there is no final relief asked by the applicant to set aside the sale notice, the auction and the sale certificates. In the absence of the auction purchaser, the question of restoration of possession does not arise.

¶101

(27) After examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the parties,

¶102

Page 21 of 22

¶103

the Tribunal concludes that the measures referred to in Section 13 (4) taken by the secured creditor are as per the SARFAESI Act read with the Rules. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for restoration of four shops (ground floor) and two shops (1^st floor).

¶104

(28) Given the discussion above, the Tribunal pass the following order:

¶105

(29) Hence, the following order:

¶106

ORDER

¶107

(A) Securitisation Application No.355 of 2022 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶108

(B) Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶109

Sd/-

¶110

(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶111

Nidhi

¶112

Page 22 of 22

Lakhpati Arora v. India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhpati Arora v. India Resurgence Arc Pvt. 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

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Mr. Rajen Kacheria

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Senam Milk and Organic Foods

Union Bank of India versus Dcon India Construction

Ms Advance Coolers and Anr. versus Punjab and Maharshtra Cooperative Bank

Hindustan Mikars Paper Pvt. Ltd. versus Phoenix Arc Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Charusheela