Application No. 28 of 2007. Case: Mr. Kamlesh R. Shah Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals
|Case Number:||Application No. 28 of 2007|
|Party Name:||Mr. Kamlesh R. Shah Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.|
|Judges:||K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer|
|Issue:||Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(3), 13(3A)|
|Judgement Date:||September 25, 2008|
|Court:||Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals|
K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
The office premises being Unit No. 201, Level 2, Bhupati Chambers, 13, Mathew Road, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004 admeasuring about 5180.18 sq. ft. are subject matter of this Securitisation Application [S.A.]/say. The Applicant filed the Application for declaration that notice Dt. 24.11.2006 u/s. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short 'SARFAESI Act'] and notice Dt. 23.02.2007 of taking symbolic possession are illegal and for quashing the same. The Applicant applied for interim relief but in charge Presiding Officer of this Tribunal by order Dt. 29.10.2007 rejected the request. On 23.11.2007, M.A. No. 212 of 2007 preferred against the order was dismissed by Hon'ble Chairperson, D.R.A.T., Mumbai having become infructuous.
The Respondent No. 1 Bank sold the premises by public auction on 30.10.2007 for Rs. 10.01 Crores and pursuant thereto handed over possession of the same to Respondent No. 2. The Applicant carried out consequential amendment in the Application and also made Respondent No. 2 as party. By the amendment, the Applicant contended that the sale was illegal and that therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside alongwith direction to Respondent No. 2 to deliver back physical possession of the property to the Applicant.
This S.A. was filed on the following grounds;
i. There are no details in the notice u/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. The rate of interest charged and the figure thereof is not mentioned. The notice also does not mention the date of NPA;
ii. On receipt of the notice, the Applicant made representation Dt. 24.01.2007 u/s. 13(3-A) of SARFAESI Act. But, the Respondent No. 1 Bank did not deal with the same in accordance with the law. The reply Dt. 27.01.2007 was slipshod and the detailed reply Dt. 19.02.2007 was beyond one week within which the Respondent No. 1 was obliged to consider the representation/objection;
iii. The sale is said to be illegal. During the course of argument, this point was elaborated by submitting that the Bank did not disclose the manner and mode as also details of the sale and has not shown that due compliance of the provisions including 8 & 9 of Security Interest [Enforcement] Rules 2002 has been made.
In the S.A. the grievance was also made that the Bank took possession from unauthorised person i.e. from Respondent No. 2 who was in its possession from the Applicant...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL