AKRON (ACRON) HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. Vs. MUKESH GUPTA
LAWS(DR)-2014-3-6
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 10,2014

Akron (Acron) Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
MUKESH GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ranjit Singh, J. - (1.) THROUGH this order two appeals are being disposed of as a common order is under challenge in both these appeals.
(2.) THE S.A. filed by the respondents 1 and 2 seeking setting aside of the sale of their property mortgaged with the bank and to declare the said sale to be null and void is allowed and the sale in favour of respondent M/s. Akron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. has been set aside by the Tribunal below. Accordingly, the present appeals have been filed by M/s Akron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and the bank to impugn the order passed by the Tribunal below. The respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta and Mr. Arjun Mittal had filed this S.A. to challenge the sale on various counts. It is alleged that no notice under sections 13(2) or section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short, the SARFAESI Act) was served on the said respondents while taking over the possession over the property. Plea further is that this property was sold without complying with the provisions of rule 8(8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (for short, the Rules). The appellant, M/s Akron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. objected to and filed response and raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the S.A. on the ground that this was hopelessly barred by limitation. The appellant also pleaded that the respondents 1 and 2 who were applicants before the Tribunal below could not raise the plea that the property was sold at a price lower than market value, as they were not the owner of the said property. This property was owned by M/s Abka Pharmacare PVt. Ltd. which is not the applicant in the said S.A. As per the appellant, the company is a separate juristic person distinct and different from its directors or shareholders. Some other pleas were also raised which may not be necessary to notice in view of the impugned order having been passed only on the ground that the sale was conducted without complying wit the provisions of rule 8(8) of the Rules.
(3.) AFTER considering the pleadings before it, the Tribunal framed the following issues requiring decision: - 1. Whether SA is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act were served upon the applicants? 3. Whether the properties in question have been sold in compliance of Rule 8(8) of the Rules, 2002?;


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