AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
The auction purchaser in possession of the secured asset is in appeal impugning the order dated 03.06.2024 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1371/2024 which was partly allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I Ahmedabad (DRT) directing him not to further alienate the property in question in favour of any third party till disposal of the S.A. and respondent bank was also directed to inform the auction purchaser about this order. The said order was made before the appearance of the appellant, and he was not given an opportunity to respond to the application. Hence this appeal.
It is pertinent to note that the auction purchaser was allowed to be impleaded as an additional party on the very same date, vide order in I.A. No. 1300/2024 regarding which the appellant has no objection, but he has an objection to the order being passed in I.A. No. 1371/2024 because he was not given an opportunity of being heard and it was an ex-parte order which has been made absolute in his absence.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, pleads that the appellant may be heard about the reliefs sought against him, and the order be modified. He intends to run a hotel on the premises. He prays that he may be allowed to run a hotel/restaurant on the premises and make certain improvements/ modifications to the building without making any structural changes.
It is also brought to my notice that the DRT had thereafter, also passed an order directing the appellant to maintain the status quo. That order is not in challenge before me in this appeal. But the juridical notice of that is taken as the order is placed before me. Given the order of status quo, the appellant will not be able to do anything on the property. It is therefore required to clarify the extent to which the order can be acted upon. Hence, I make the following alteration to the order.
The amendment allowed as per the I.A. No. 1300/2024 is confirmed. As regards the order in I.A. No. 1371/2024, it is directed that the appellant auction purchaser shall not make any structural changes to the subject building. He has the liberty to make only cosmetic changes sufficient to carry out his business of running a hotel/restaurant on the premises and he shall be not claiming equity about the improvement/ modification made. It also made clear that the appellant shall not create any third-party interest.
There is an objection raised by the Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, stating that the appellant has already violated the order of the DRT by creating a fresh mortgage, which is a third-party interest over the property. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant responds to this by stating that it is not a fresh mortgage but only the takeover of the earlier mortgage already created before the order dated 03.06.2024. whether it is a takeover of the earlier mortgage or whether it is a new mortgage created in violation of the order passed by the DRT is something to be considered by the DRT on the appropriate application being made by respondent No.2.
Since the interest over the auctioned purchaser is at stake, and the sale is also challenged, an effort shall be made by the DRT to expedite the disposal of the S.A.