Allowed

Manaf P B v. Union Bank of India

DRT3 Sept 2025MA/142/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT reviewed a final order by its own motion to correct a clerical omission regarding the setting aside of a property sale and the refund of sale consideration to the correct parties, thereby preventing a miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowing prosecution was disposed of; the Tribunal orally corrected the final order dated 29.04.2025 to set aside the sale to the 3rd respondent and direct refund of sale consideration.

Manaf P B versus Union Bank of India — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 03^rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

MA No. 142 of 2025 in S.A. No. 209 of 2020

¶6

Between

¶7

Manaf P.B., Puthiyedathu House, Thaikkattukara, Muttam, Aluva,

¶8

Ernakulam – 683 106.

¶9

P.B. Araf, S/o. I. Basheer,

¶10

3-C, Abad Olympus,

¶11

Raghavan Pillai Road,

¶12

Edappally, Kochi-24.

¶13

P.B. Shakeela, W/o.Muhammed Nasser, Muriparambil House, Menon Bazar P.O., Azhikode, Kodungalloor, Trichur District, Now at Villa No.35, Buhaira Compound, Aziziah, PO Box No.73073, Al-Khobar-31952, Saudi Arabia, represented by Power of Attorney Holder,

¶14

P.K. Beefathu, Puthiyedathu House, Thaikkattukara, Muttam, Aluva, Ernakulam – 683 106.

¶15

MA No.142/2025 in SA 209/2020

¶16

P.H. Mohammed Ali, Puthiyedathu House, Thaikkattukara, Muttam, Aluva, Ernakulam – 683 106.

¶17

P.K. Beefathu,

¶18

Puthiyedathu House, Thaikkattukara, Muttam, Aluva, Ernakulam – 683 106.

¶19

P.B. Ashraf, Puthiyedathu House, Thaikkattukara, Muttam, Aluva, Ernakulam – 683 106.

¶20

P.B. Sheriff, B3, Jawahar Jewel Apartments, Jawahar Nagar, Kadavanthra P.O. Ernakulam – 682 020.

¶21

Sajna Manaf, Puthiyedathu House, Thaikkattukara, Muttam, Aluva, Ernakulam – 683 106.

¶22

--- Petitioners/Applicants

¶23

And

¶24

The Union Bank of India, Represented by its Manager, Thevara Branch, Pillanassery Building,

¶25

Opp: Cochin Shipyard, Perumanoor Gate, M.G. Road, Ernakulam – 682015.

¶26

The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, Thevara, Pillanassery Building, Opp: Cochin Shipyard, Perumanoor Gate, M.G. Road, Ernakulam – 682015.

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

MA No.142/2025 in SA 209/2020

¶29

Praveen M. Vasudev, Mundakaparambil House, Alattuchira P.O, Kodanad, Ernakulam -683 544.

¶30

---Respondents/Defendants

¶31

This petition coming on 13.08.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. V.K. Peer Mohamed Khan, Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Applicants and Mr. Sadchith P. Kurup, Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2/Defendants 1 & 2 and Mr. Alphin Counsel appearing for 3^rd respondent/3^rd defendant and upon hearing arguments of all the parties and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

MA No.142/2025 in S.A. No.209/2020 :- This petition has been filed praying to pass an order for initiating action for prosecution against the respondents for purposely violating the final order of this Tribunal dated 29.04.2025.

¶34

The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this Tribunal passed final order dated 29.04.2025 partly dismissing the SA in respect of the reliefs pertaining to Annexure – X demand notice, Annexure – IX, XIII & XIV possession notices and partly allowed the reliefs pertaining to Annexure – XXII order for taking physical possession of the ‘A’ schedule property and the sale notices Annexure – XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXV and XXVI and also setting aside the sale of the properties pursuant to Annexure – XIX, XXV & XXVI sale notices.

¶35

The counsel for the petitioner submitted further that since Annexure – XIX sale notice was also set aside, all the sale transactions entered into pursuant to the above sale notice became null and void and that the 3^rd respondent who remained exparte in the SA proceedings continues to remain in the possession of the property. Though the petitioner sent letter dated 30.05.2025 document No.1 to the 1^st respondent bank requesting to handover the property, it refused to respond to the letter. The respondents 1 & 2 violated the final order of this Tribunal by refusing to comply with the direction for handing over the property. The 3^rd respondent also refused to hand over the property. Therefore, the respondents may be prosecuted for violating the order of this Tribunal.

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

MA No.142/2025 in SA 209/2020

¶38

The counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that this Tribunal passed order setting aside only the sale notices Annexure – XVI to XXI, XXV and XXVI and that the order does not contain any specific direction to set aside or cancel the sale in favour of the 3^rd respondent. The sale of the property to the 3^rd respondent was finalized prior to passing of the order, sale certificate was also registered and the same was recorded by this Tribunal. Though Annexure – XIX sale notice was set aside, the sale of the property to the 3^rd respondent was not set aside. There is no willful disobedience of order of this Tribunal. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed with costs to the respondents 1 & 2.

¶39

The counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the sale of the properties pursuant to Annexures – XXV & XVI were alone set aside by this Tribunal in its final order dated 29.04.2025 and that hence the sale conducted pursuant to Annexure – XIX remains valid and sale certificate was registered in favour of the 3^rd respondent. The sale effected in favour of the 3^rd respondent was neither challenged nor was set aside. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

¶40

The 3^rd respondent purchased the item No.2 property mentioned in Annexure – XIX sale notice in the e-auction held on 14.06.2023. After confirmation of sale, sale certificate was issued to him and thereafter sale certificate was also registered as sale Deed No.769/2024 at Aluva SRO on 19.03.2024. The 3^rd respondent has been put into possession of the property. However it is pertinent to mention herein that he remained exparte throughout the proceedings of the SA before this Tribunal.

¶41

In paragraphs 52, 53 & 54 of the final order dated 29.04.2025 it has been observed by this Tribunal as follows :

¶42

“52. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs of setting aside Annexure-X demand notice, possession notices Annexure-IX, XIII and XIV. However, the applicants are entitled to get the relief of setting aside the order Annexure-XXII passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam in CMP No.198/2020 and taking possession of ‘A’ schedule property pursuant to AnnexureXXII order and also to get the relief of setting aside the sale notices Annexure-XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXV and XXVI and sale of item No.3 of the properties described in Annexure-XXV sale notice to the 5^th defendant, the sale of item No.3 of the properties described in Annexure-XXVI sale notice to the 6^th defendant and sale of item No.1 of the properties described in Annexure-XXVI sale notice.

¶43

Page 4 of 7

¶44

MA No.142/2025 in SA 209/2020

¶45

53. Accordingly, S.A No.209 of 2020 stands partly dismissed in respect of the reliefs pertaining to Annexure-X demand notice, Annexure-IX, XIII and XIV possession notices and partly stands allowed in respect of the reliefs pertaining to Annexure-XXII order, taking possession of ‘A’ schedule property pursuant to Annexure-XXII order and the sale notices Annexure-XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXV and XXVI and also setting aside the sale of the properties pursuant to Annexure-XXV and XXVI sale notices.

¶46

54. The defendants 1 and 2 are hereby directed to handover the vacant possession of ‘A’ schedule property to the applicants within a period of one month from today. The 1^st defendant bank is directed to return the sale consideration amount paid by the defendants 5 to 7 to them with accrued interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of sale consideration amount till the date of payment.”

¶47

On perusal of the averments of the petitioners in their affidavit filed alongwith this petition, this Tribunal notices that an error has been crept in paragraph Nos.52 to 54. It is noticed that there is an omission in paragraph 52 of the order that the applicants are also entitled to get the relief of setting aside the sale of item No.2 property mentioned in Annexure – XIX to the 3^rd respondent. There is also an omission in Para 53 of the order that SA partly stands allowed in respect of the relief of setting aside sale of the property to the 3^rd respondent pursuant to Annexure – XIX sale notice. There is also an omission in Para 54 of the order in respect of the direction to the 1^st defendant bank to return the sale consideration amount paid by the 3^rd respondent with accrued interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the sale consideration amount till the date of payment. It is pertinent to mention herein that there is a clear observation and direction for setting aside the sale of the properties to the defendants 5 to 7 pursuant to Annexure – XV & XVI notices and also for return of the sale consideration amount paid by the defendants 5 to 7 to them with accrued interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of sale consideration amount till the date of payment.

¶48

Therefore it is evident that due to typographical error and inadvertent mistake to notice the same, the above observation with regard to setting aside the sale of the property to the 3^rd defendant and for return of the sale consideration amount to him has been omitted to be stated in the final order. There is also an omission in the final order directing the defendants 3 & 5 to 7 to handover the vacant possession of the properties sold to them to the 1^st defendant bank.

¶49

Now the issue which arises for consideration is as to whether this Tribunal can review its order in order to pass appropriate direction to the 1^st

¶50

Page 5 of 7

¶51

MA No.142/2025 in SA 209/2020

¶52

defendant bank to return the sale consideration amount paid by the 3^rd respondent to him and to direct the defendants 3 & 5 to 7 to hand over the vacant possession of the property sold to them to the 1^st defendant bank.

¶53

This petition has been filed by the petitioners for initiating prosecution against the respondents for violating the final order of this Tribunal. When it is brought to the notice of this Tribunal that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the final order dated 29.04.2025, it is just and necessary for this Tribunal to review the order so as to render the appropriate finding and direction in order to give effects to its order. Otherwise there will be miscarriage of justice, though the applicants have been granted partial relief in the SA. Even this Tribunal can review its own order suo moto if the Tribunal itself notices any error apparent on the face of the record in the order.

¶54

In view of the forgoing reasons, it is hereby observed as follows :

¶55

(i) In Para 52 of the final order, it should be corrected and read as , “ the sale of item No.2 property described in Annexure - XIX sale notice to the 3^rd defendant and sale of item No.1 properties described in Annexure – XXV sale notice to the 5^th defendant, the sale of item No.3 of the properties described in Annexure – XXVI to the 6^th defendant and sale of item No.1 of the property described in Annexure – XXVI to the 7^th defendant” instead of “ sale of item No.3 properties described in Annexure – XXV sale notice to the 5^th defendant, the sale of item No.3 of the properties described in Annexure – XXVI to the 6^th defendant and item No.1 of the property described in Annexure – XXVI”.

¶56

(ii) In Para 53 of the final order, it should be corrected and read as “and also setting aside sale of the properties pursuant to Annexure – XIX, XV & XVI sale notices” instead of “and also setting aside sale of the properties pursuant to Annexure – XV & XVI sale notices”

¶57

(iii) In Para 54 of the final order, it should be corrected and read as “the 1^st defendant bank is directed to return the sale consideration amount paid by the defendants 3, 5 to 7 to them with accrued interest at 6% per annum from the date of sale consideration amount till the date of payment” instead of “the 1^st defendant bank is directed to return the sale consideration amount paid by the defendants 5 to 7 to

¶58

Page 6 of 7

¶59

MA No.142/2025 in SA 209/2020

¶60

them with accrued interest at 6% per annum from the date of sale consideration amount till the date of payment”.

¶61

With the above observations, this petition MA No.142/2025 is disposed of accordingly.

¶62

This order shall form part and parcel of the final order dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in SA 209/2020.

¶63

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 03^rd day of September, 2025.

¶64

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶65

Mj/-

¶66

Page 7 of 7

Manaf P B v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manaf P B v. Union 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

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammedkutty T versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Ms Bitts Marketing

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Ms Hina Agencies

Smt Anshu Sahani versus Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Harwant Singh

Canara Bank versus M/s Shyam Trading