Decided on January 09,2014



RajMani Chauhan, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) THIS Appeal under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act) has been directed by the original Intervener (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) in the Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 16/2011 against common order dated 10th September, 2013 passed by Shri A. Vijay Kumar, the learned Presiding Officer (learned P.O.), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) No. 1, Mumbai, in Interim Application (I.A.) No. 279/2013 and I.A. 282/2013 in S.A. No. 16/2011 (Nikunj K. Kanakai v. State Bank of Mysore) whereby the learned Presiding Officer has dismissed the aforesaid interim applications. The relevant facts giving rise to the present Appeal may be briefly stated as under:
(2.) THE respondent No. 2, Nikunj K. Kanakai, availed certain credit facilities sanctioned by the respondent No. 1. The amount of credit facility was secured by creation of equitable mortgage of the immovable property. Undisputedly, the respondent No. 2 committed default in repayment of the installments of the credit facility availed by him. Consequently the respondent No. 1 classified his account as Non -Performing Asset (N.P.A.) and proceeded under the SARFAESI Act. The authorised officer of the respondent No. 1 served demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the borrower calling upon him to pay the outstanding dues within 60 days from the date of issuance of the demand notice but the respondent No. 2 failed to pay the amount demanded by the authorised officer. The authorised officer, thereafter proceeded under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the measures taken by the authorised officer of respondent No. 1 under Section 13(4) filed Appeal/Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 16/2011 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. Since no ad interim order was passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT in the pending S.A., the Authorized Officer of the respondent No. 1, therefore, proceeded to sell the secured asset.
(3.) THE Authorized Officer on 20th February, 2012 published auction notice in newspapers fixing 31st March, 2012 for auction sale. Since the S.A. was pending before the learned Presiding Officer, therefore, the Authorized Officer sought permission from the learned Presiding Officer to proceed with the sale. The learned Presiding Officer vide order dated 27th March, 2012 permitted the Authorized Officer to proceed with the sale with a rider that the sale will not be confirmed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.