Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MANISH SHAH vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS on 12 October 2023
12/10/2023 Ex.
No.
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai.
Roznama in Appeal 18 of 2023
Manish Shah Vs Punjab National Bank and
Ors
Next date
Advocate Ms. Sanjana appeared for the
Appellant.
Senior Advocate Mr. Nitin Thakkar a/w
Gupta, Anuj Prakhar Mahipal appeared for the Respondent no.1
Advocate Mr. Dinesh Purandar Mr. Chaitanya Mehta, Sonali Aggarwal i/b Dhruv Liladhar &
Co. appeared for the Respondent no.2.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By way of the present Appeal, the Appellant is seeking declaration of impugned orders dated 25/08/2023 read with order dated 11/09/2023 passed by the Learned Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai are void ab-initio, non-est, untenable in law and therefore may be set aside.
2. During the argument Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant was interested to purchase the property in question situated at Office No. 2001
and 2002, 20th Floor, Tower b, Peninsula Business Park, Lower Parel, Mumbai. (hereinafter referred to as “property in question”) however, since the Ld. Recovery Officer abruptly change the date of sale by issuing corrigendum therefore, Appellant could not participate in the said auction. Thus, he submits that present Appeal may be allowed and the orders dated 25/08/2023 and 11/09/2023 of Ld. Recovery Officer may be quashed and set aside.
3. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent no.1 objected on the maintainability of the present Appeal and stated that Appellant neither guarantor nor the auction purchaser and not deposited any amount in the impugned auction and also even not created any ID to participate in the auction, thus, Appellant is not entitled to challenge the auction in the present matter. He also raised various other objections on the present Appeal.
4. Ld. Counsel for the auction purchaser
Sgj/-40 also objected on the present Appeal.
5. Looking to the facts that the Appellant even not registered himself to participate in the auction and even otherwise he is not shown any bonafide in the property in question, and further the Appellant did not assail his grievance with the initial / first authority i.e. Recovery Officer, thus, the present Appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal hence declined.
6. Registry is hereby directed to send the record of Recovery Certificate immediately to Ld. Recovery Officer. File be closed and consigned to record room.
P.O. DRT-I