Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Mr Suhel Iqbal Patanwala vs CORPORATION BANK on 23 September 2022
(npb)
Presented on:
28.06.2018
Registered on:
08.08.2018
Decided on:
23.09.2022
Duration:
Y M D
4 2 26
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
(Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.40/2018
Mr. Suhel Iqbal Patanwala,
Age: 44 years, Occupation: Business,
Address: Flat No.204, Building No.E8,
Lake
Town
Society,
Bibwewadi,
Pune-411 037.
… Applicant
Versus
1.
Corporation Bank,
Somwar Peth Branch, Pune- 411 011.
2.
Mr. Vikas Vishnukumar Agarwal,
Age: Adult, Occupation: Business,
R/o. 252/3, Nana Peth, Navshing
Society, Pune-411 002.
3.
P P Enterprises,
A partnership firm
Address: Wing C1, Gat NO.1355,
Wadaki Taluka Haveli, District: Pune.
4.
Mrs. Poonam Vishnukumar Agarwal,
Age: Adult, Occupation: Business,
R/o. 252/3, Nana Peth, Navshing
Society, Pune-411 002.
5.
Mrs. Preeti Sachin Agarwal,
Age: Adult, Occupation: Business
(npb)
R/o. Panchawati Bungalow, First
Floor, Bhakti Shakti Chowk, Next to
Hotel Vrindawan, Nigdi, Pune-411
044.
… Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant
Mr. Vishal Kale i/b Kale & Shinde
Associates - Advocate
For Respondent No.1
For Respondent Nos.2 to 5
Mr. Ramesh B. Ganbote – Advocate
None
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.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 23rd September, 2022)
1. This is an application filed by applicant for condonation of delay of 256 days in filing Securitization Application.
2. The contesting respondent Bank resisted the application by filing Reply (Exhibit-7).
3. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the parties.
4. Perused record.
5. It is the contention of the applicant that he was in possession of suit property as a Licensee as per Leave & License Agreement dated 13.01.2018 and also proposed purchaser of suit property on the basis of Agreement to Sell executed on 25.10.2017 by borrower-Respondent No.2. From these bare contentions, it prima facie reveals that the
(npb)
applicant was holding suit property neither as tenancy right or lease-hold right. At this juncture, as per provision of Section 17 (4-A), Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine whether there is lease or tenancy of person claiming the same.
6. Since the applicant is himself claiming Licensee of the suit property, he does not come within the orbit of Section 17 (4- A) of SARFAESI Act. Therefore, he could not be, prima facie, termed as aggrieved person. Further, he is claiming possession for the suit property on the basis of Agreement to Sell. However, the said Agreement is not registered one, but simply notarized. Therefore, the applicant, prima facie, would not hold good title to the suit property.
7. The grounds for delay caused in filing Securitization Application are inadequate. Therefore, the application is liable for dismissal.
8. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(A) Miscellaneous Application No.40/2018 is hereby dismissed.
(npb)
(B) Pronounced in open Court.
Place : Pune Date : 23.09.2022
Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune