Appeal No. 14 of 2008. Case: Balkrishna Sandeepkumar Vs Union Bank of India. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals
|Case Number:||Appeal No. 14 of 2008|
|Party Name:||Balkrishna Sandeepkumar Vs Union Bank of India|
|Judges:||K.J. Paratwar, J. (Presiding Officer)|
|Judgement Date:||October 10, 2008|
|Court:||Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals|
K.J. Paratwar, J. (Presiding Officer)
The order Dt. 24.01.2008 passed by Recovery Officer [R.O.] [Shri Udai Pal Singh] of this Tribunal dismissing the Appellant's-Intervener's application in Recovery Proceeding [R.P.] No. 40 of 2006 for protecting occupancy rights in the following properties under challenge in this Appeal;
i. Godown No. 201, Building No. C, Antop Hill Warehousing Co. Ltd., Antio Hill Warehousing Complex, Wadala [East], Mumbai 400 037;
ii. Plinth No. 3 and,
iii. Plinth No. 4 both situated at Sakharam Compound, Village Rahahal, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane.
In the Recovery Certificate [R.C.], the property has been declared by this Tribunal to be mortgaged.
The Appellant's case before the learned R.O. and this Tribunal is that the Certificate Debtor No. 1 had purchased the property in February - March 2000 from the funds [Rs. 15 Lacs] advanced by it with understanding that the Appellant-Intervener can use and occupy the property until the repayment. The parties had accordingly entered into an agreement of lease Dt. 21.09.2000. The terms were confirmed by deed of lease Dt. 30.12.2000. It is the Appellant's case that the Certificate Debtor No. 1 confirmed receipt of the security deposit in its audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2001. The contention is that the disposal of the attached property can be done subject to his occupancy rights.
Vide reply in the nature of affidavit of Mr. S.B. Sapkale, the Respondent Bank resisted the application by contending that the Intervener [who was Director of Certificate Debtor No. 1 Company] was party to the O.A. and is thus Certificate Debtor. In the O.A. he did not bring on record the facts averred in this matter. The Respondent denies that the property was purchased from the Appellant's-Intervener's monies. The Agreement Dt. 21.09.2000 and Lease Deed Dt. 31.12.2000 are said to be sham and bogus prepared for defeating the Bank's dues. The documents are said to be inadmissible in evidence for want of proper stamping and registration. The stamp paper is purchased by third party and not by party to the agreement. The contention is that on bare lifting of corporate veil, it would be clear that the Lessor and Lessee are one and the same person. It is also stated that the R.I. has noted in the Panchanama Dt. 18.04.2007 that the properties seem to be closed from 3 to 4 years & that this defies the Intervener's claim of being possession. The Certificate Holder Bank has prayed...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL