Allowed

Ms Hatimi Steels Through Proprietor Amit Jain v. State Bank of India

DRT25 Sept 2025APPEAL/20/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An auction purchaser (appellant) challenged a dismissal of applications seeking refund of sale deposit. The tribunal held that due to missing/damaged machinery caused by delays, sufficient grounds existed to withdraw from the auction. The appeal was allowed, sale quashed, and refund granted.

What did the court decide?

The auction sale was quashed; the deposited amount refundable with bank interest within one month; the impugned order of July 12, 2024 set aside and quashed.

Ms Hatimi Steels Through Proprietor Amit Jain versus State… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 26.07.2024 Registered on: 12.08.2024 Decided on: 25.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 1 1 29

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶3

APPEAL No.20/2024

¶4

M/s. Hatimi Steels Through its Proprietor Mr. Amit Jain 301/302, Satra Residency, 14^th Road, Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052.

¶5

… Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 State Bank of India Through its Authorized Officer Stressed Assets Recovery Branch 2^nd Floor, Wardhaman Seven Loves Chowk, Plot No.321/A/3, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune – 411 042.

¶8

M/s. Shree Pomani Metals and Alloys Ltd., G-7, Sangli Miraj, MIDC, Sangli, Maharashtra – 416 436.

¶9

Ld. Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

Formal Party

... Respondents

(Appeal No.20/2024)

Page 1 of 9

[KAUR]

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant Mr. Ritesh Patadia a/w Ms. Riddhi Vadgama – Advocate For Respondent No.1 Mrs. Sudha Koloti – Advocate

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 25^th September, 2025)

¶19

This appeal emerges from Order dated 12^th July, 2024 passed below Exhibit-159 in RP No.303/2015 in OA No.406/2015 by the Recovery Officer, Pune, thereby challenging the order of dismissal of the said applications.

¶20

2 Facts of the case can be summarized as under:

¶21

The appellant, a Proprietorship firm represented through its Proprietor Mr. Amit Jain is auction purchaser who had participated in the auction dated 12.10.2022 duly conducted by the Recovery Officer for purchasing the movable items i.e. plant and machinery (for short “disputed suit property”).

¶22

It is the case of the appellant that prior to purchasing the movable property, it had got verified the disputed suit property at the site in the presence of the Branch Manager of Respondent No.1 Bank who informed that all the plant

¶23

and machinery lying at the site is under auction. As per terms of sale, the appellant participated in the auction dated

(Appeal No.20/2024)

Page 2 of 9

[KAUR]

12^th October, 2022 and was declared as successful highest bidder qua Plant and Machinery for Rs.104.40 lakhs against the Reserve Price of Rs.27.90 lakhs.

¶28

As per terms and conditions of sale, the appellant deposited 25% amount i.e. Rs.26.10 lakhs on 13^th October, 2022 and as remaining amount of 75% being 78,30,000/- on 27^th October,2022. The Ld. Recovery Officer vide Order dated 27^th October, 2022 confirmed the same and further directed to deposit the Poundage Fees and accordingly, the appellant deposited the same.

¶29

Thereafter, the appellant filed Application (Exhibit-103) for withdrawal of sale amount deposited by it towards purchase of disputed suit property as the possession and sale was not confirmed in its favour. However, the said application was rejected by the Ld. Recovery Officer vide order dated 4^th March, 2023.

¶30

The appellant vide Application (Exhibit-156) requested for issuance of sale certificate and appointment of Court Commissioner to verify the status of the disputed suit property. The said application was allowed by the Ld. Recovery Officer by order dated 30^th November, 2023.

(Appeal No.20/2024)

Page 3 of 9

[KAUR]

As per the order, the Court Commissioner in the presence of the appellant inspected the premises and it came to the knowledge that certain inventories are missing and inventories are in deteriorated conditions. The machineries were not in working condition and even after waiting long the appellant was not getting the complete inventory. Thus, being aggrieved by the conduct of respondent No.1 bank, the appellant filed Application (Exhibit-159) and prayed for cancellation of auction sale dated 12.10.2022 in its favour and refund for entire sale consideration amount with interest and further to appoint valuer to carry out new valuation report of the plant and machinery, to fetch the actual status of the plant and machinery as on today.

¶35

The Recovery Officer by impugned order dated 12^th July, 2025 rejected the application holding that CH Bank to carry out Re-valuation of missing machinery part – “Hopper Rotary Drum” mentioned in the Court Commissioner Mr. Abhay Somkuwar’s report & amount of the said part shall be refunded by CH Bank to the Auction Purchaser and The Valuation report shall be submitted to the undersigned post appointment of Valuer on the next date thereafter.

(Appeal No.20/2024)

Page 4 of 9

[KAUR]

The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent bank orally contested the application.

¶40

Heard both the parties. Perused the written submission/arguments filed by the appellant.

¶41

According to the appellant, it has purchased the disputed suit property for Rs.104.40 lakhs though Reserve Price was only Rs.27.90 lakhs. Thereafter, delay took place in confirmation of sale by the Ld. Recovery Officer. When Court Commissioner took inspection of disputed suit property as per order of Ld. Recovery Officer one machinery was found missing and some were in deteriorated condition. Hence, he filed Report accordingly. So also, due to delay in completing process of sale, value of disputed suit property diminished and also damage caused to them. Therefore, the appellant is not willing to proceed in sale process of the said disputed suit property and want to withdraw from auction and therefore, entitled for refund of amount deposit by it with interest.

¶42

In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon the following Authorities: (1) Royal Star Trading Company Vs. IFCI Limited & Anr.

(Appeal No.20/2024)

Page 5 of 9

[KAUR]

(2) V. Ravi Kumar Vs. UCO Bank reported in MANU/AP/0398/2018

¶48

(3) Bank of Baroda & Ors Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors [Writ Petition No.6327 of 2022 decided on 6^th January, 2023 by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru].

¶49

According to respondent bank though appellant has deposited money in the year 2022, appeal has been filed in the year 2024 after lapse of two years. Therefore, he is not entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶50

The following points arise for my determination and I record my findings as under:

¶51

(1) Whether grounds for claiming refund of money deposited by appellant are adequate?

¶52

(2) Whether appellant is entitled for relief as claimed?

¶53

(3) What order?

¶54

Findings:

¶55

Point No.1 – In the affirmative.

(Appeal No.20/2024)

Page 6 of 9

[KAUR]

Point No.2 – In the affirmative

¶60

Point No.3 – As per final order.

¶61

Reasons

¶62

As to Point Nos.1 and 2

¶63

Perused the record and documents produced by both the parties.

¶64

Admittedly, disputed suit property of Certificate Debtor was put for auction sale by the Recovery Officer of this Court and the appellant is successful bidder. The Reserve Price for disputed sale property was fixed at Rs.27.90 lakhs and the appellant has purchased the disputed suit property for Rs.104.40 lakhs. However, the sale was not confirmed timely due to objections raised by respondent bank and third party. Thereafter, as per order of Civil Court of Bihar State possession of disputed suit property was taken by Court Commissioner for some period. After release of disputed suit property by that Civil Court and as per request of appellant Court Commissioner was appointed for inspection of disputed suit property and at that time it was found that one machinery was missing. Since more than one year was passed from sale of the disputed suit

(Appeal No.20/2024)

Page 7 of 9

[KAUR]

property, its value deteriorated and also got damaged. Since the said disputed suit property is not useful for the appellant now, he is willing to withdraw from the auction and therefore, claimed relief to refund of amount deposited towards sale price of disputed suit property with interest.

¶69

Though according to respondent bank and as per impugned order of Recovery Officer passed below Application (Exhibit-159) part of one machinery is missing, anyhow that part may be important for running that machinery. That apart, if appellant is permitted to withdraw from auction, fresh auction can be conducted and thus, no prejudice would be caused to the Certificate Holder Bank and Certificate Debtor Borrower.

¶70

In view of these facts and observations, I am of opinion that grounds mentioned for withdrawal from auction sale of disputed suit property are adequate and therefore, appellant is entitled for refund of money deposited by him.

¶71

The appellant is claiming interest on the amount deposited by him. However, it is to be noted that said amount has been deposited in this Court which has been invested in FDR in bank and therefore, appellant is entitled for interest

(Appeal No.20/2024)

Page 8 of 9

[KAUR]

given by the bank on this FDR amount and not more than that.

¶76

Consequently, I hold that appeal deserves to be allowed. Therefore, by answering these points accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

(A) The Appeal is hereby allowed. (B) Order dated 12^th July,2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-159) in RP No.303/2016 is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶79

¶80

(D) The amount deposited by appellant herein be refunded to the appellant with interest given by the bank in which the said amount is invested as FDR within one month from today.

¶81

Pronounced in open Court

¶82

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date : 25.09.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶83

(Appeal No.20/2024)

¶84

Page 9 of 9

¶85

[KAUR]

Ms Hatimi Steels Through Proprietor Amit Jain v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Hatimi Steels Through Proprietor Amit Jain 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Komal

Federal Bank versus Savanta

Bank of India versus Namdeo Gaikwad

Yes Bank versus Pratik Hemant Bendre

Federal Bank versus Kiran

Federal Bank versus Chandrakant More