Mukeshbhai R Bhadiyadra v. Bank of Baroda

25/01/2024	P	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in SA No.91 of 2023 Mukesh Ranchodbhai Bhadiyadra Vs. Bank of Baroda	Next date
		Advocate appeared for the Applicant. Advocate A.R. Bamne appeared for the Respondent. IA No.106/2024 1. Today the matter is listed for order on the present IA. 2. By way of the present IA, the Applicant is prayed to restrain the Respondent from initiating measures with respect to the Flat No.1203 on the 12thFloor alongwith the car parking under Rule (8) and (9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 i.e. auction to be held on 23.01.2024 in pursuance to the alleged auction notice dated 30.12.2023 and/or from transferring assigning, charging or creating any third party rights in or parting with the possession of or dealing in any manner whatsoever with all or any of the assets movable or immoveable on any part thereof with respect to the said Flat No.1203 on the 12thFloor alongwith car parking till the disposal of the SA. 3. The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that Respondent failed to give 30

1

days first auction notice as required under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (“Rules, 2002”). He further contends that the Applicant has already gave an OTS proposal however, instead of considering the said OTS, the Respondent proceeded further for sale of the property in question. 4. He also raised objection on the reserve price of the property in question and submits that in the first auction notice, the reserve price was fixed Rs.12.09 crores but in the present sale notice the reserve price is arbitrarily reduced to Rs.6.60 crores thus, he submits that the respondent may be restrained from proceeding further in the impugned auction. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank strongly objected to the present application and submits that this is an another attempt of the Applicant to create the hurdle in the auction. He also submits that on 15.02.2022 the auction notice of 30 days was duly been issued, thus, the objection of the Applicant that no 30 (thirty) days notice of auction was issued is wrong and misconceived. He also submits that the Applicant approached to the respondent for settlement however, no upfront amount is deposited for consideration of the settlement and also only an email was sent to the bank instead of