AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. P. Sahi, President Member
Heard learned counsel for the complainant.
The complainant has come up with the following reliefs:
“b. direct the Opposite Party to handover the original documents of the mortgaged property as mentioned in Registered mortgaged Deed dated 8.02.2013 of land admeasuring area bearing S. No. 73/1 total admeasuring area 0H 45 R situated at Sadgaon Bk pune Maharashtra & land Plot No. 3 in project Fulora at Shirwal Dist. Satara and to execute release deed in favour of the complainant.”
It is urged that this complaint deserves to be entertained as there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank in not returning the title deeds.
The complainant has very fairly disclosed all facts pertaining to the title of the said land and it is evident that the land was subjected to auction proceedings in terms of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is alleged that the Bank itself had purchased the said land at just 25% of its value. The tender sale proceedings dated 24.11.2020 are on record at page 55 of the paper book. The contention raised is the retention of the title deeds and the sale conducted amounts to unfair trade practice.
5 Having heard learned counsel for the complainant, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for putting the property to auction through public notice is not an unfair trade practice as the statutory provisions therein empower the concerned competent authority to proceed subject of course to the contest by the party concerned. We are not adjudicating the status of the auction proceedings here but the fact remains that the same property, the title deeds whereof are sought to be released through this complaint has already been auctioned in favour of the bank. If the bank is retaining the original title deed that does not amount to deficiency in service as they are being retained after auction which they are entitled to do so under a statutory sale executed after an auction in legal proceedings. In the wake of the aforesaid facts this complaint is misconceived and is accordingly rejected without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek his remedy before the appropriate forum.