Dismissed

Idfc First Bank Limited Thru Authorised Officer Noman Siddiqi v. Dharmendra Popatlal Patel

Gujarat HC18 Feb 2022SCA/2900/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court entertained a Special Civil Application challenging a DRT order restoring possession to respondents. Due to the unavailability of the DRAT Chairperson, the Court directed maintenance of status quo for two weeks and granted liberty to file an appeal. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to maintain status quo regarding the property in question for two weeks up to 4th March, 2022, with liberty to file an appeal.

Idfc First Bank Limited Thru Authorised Officer Noman… — Company and Corporate | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/2900/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2900 of 2022

¶4

================================================================ IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED THRU AUTHORISED OFFICER NOMAN SIDDIQI Versus DHARMENDRA POPATLAL PATEL

¶5

================================================================ Appearance:

¶6

MR RASHESH SANJANWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. RAHUL M BAROT(9965) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 SHIVANI RAJPUROHIT(5377) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4

¶7

================================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

¶9

Date : 18/02/2022

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Rashesh Sanjanwala assisted by learned advocate Mr.Rahul Barot for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Bhavsar who appears on caveat for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent No.4 through video conference.

¶12

This petition is filed against the order dated 10^th January, 2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (for short “the DRT”) in Securitisation Application No.183 of 2021 filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶13

Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala for the petitioner submitted that this petition is filed

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

C/SCA/2900/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶16

before this Court in view of non-availability of the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It was submitted that now the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Bombay is appointed by the Central Government and therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal as per Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶17

Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be stayed for a period of two weeks as the petitioner Bank is directed to restore the possession of the secured assets to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of four weeks from the date of the order which is already over and it may take some time for the Appellate Tribunal to hear and pass order on an interim injunction application which may be preferred by the petitioner Bank.

¶18

On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Bhavsar for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the respondents are without residence since January, 2021 and the Tribunal has passed the impugned order cancelling the sale certificate issued by the petitioner Bank and directed the petitioner Bank to restore the

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

C/SCA/2900/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶21

possession of the secured assets to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is just and proper and no interference is required to be made. If the petitioner does not restore the possession, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are required to approach to the Tribunal for execution of the impugned order which may take some time.

¶22

In re-joinder, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala submitted that as the respondent No.4 District Magistrate is a party before the DRT, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are pressing the impugned order passed against the petitioner to restore the possession, the respondent No.4 District Magistrate is likely to take coercive action to restore the possession. It was further submitted that it would be breach of the order passed by the DRT if the petitioner do not restore the possession.

¶23

In such circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner could not approach the Appellate Tribunal in absence of the Chairperson of the Tribunal, interest of justice would be met if all the parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the property in question for next two weeks i.e. up to 4^th March, 2022.

¶24

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner Bank to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

C/SCA/2900/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022

¶27

Tribunal to challenge the impugned order dated 10^th January, 2022 passed by the DRT-II, Ahmedabad in SA No.183 of 2021.

¶28

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

¶29

dolly

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Idfc First Bank Limited Thru Authorised Officer Noman Siddiqi v. Dharmendra Popatlal Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc First Bank Limited Thru Authorised Officer Noman Siddiqi v. Dharmendra Popatlal Patel

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

Rajkumar Dindayal Agrawal Vs the O. L. of M/S Real Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (in Liquidation)

Bhavnaben Jitendrakumar Gelot Vs Shriram Housing Finance Limited through Authorized Officer

Parthiv Rameshbhai Pandit Vs District Registrar Co-Operative Societies (Housing) Ahmedabad

Ashwin Dhirajlal Thaker Vs Bank of Baroda

Jayashriben Rohitbhai Borad Vs District Magistrate

Panchal Prahladbhai Laxmanbhai Vs State of Gujarat