Rameshwari Devi vs Canara Bank

R. D. Khare, Chairperson

Since the possession of the property in question is likely to be taken by the bank on 02.06.2023, therefore, the urgency application was allowed subject to giving notice to the respondent-bank, which has been given to the law officer of the Bank, who is present personally.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the law officer of the bank.

The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the interim order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the DRT, Allahabad in I.A. No. 1758/2023, whereby the prayer of the appellant for grant of interim relief has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a third party and is neither borrower nor guarantor or mortgagor, whereas the property of the appellant has been mortgaged on account of fraud committed by the borrower and the Bank. In this regard, first information report was lodged and criminal prosecution was started and the borrowers are in jail. It is matter of the fact that after the property of the appellant was sold, the appellant filed the S.A. No. 210/2021 before the DRT, Allahabad challenging the entire sale proceedings. It is contended that the property in question is a residential property, in which the appellant resides.

It is further contended that due to false statement made by the respondent-bank before the DRT, Lucknow holding additional charge of the DRT, Allahabad, that a writ petition has been filed against the same cause of action, therefore, her application for grant of interim relief was rejected by the DRT vide order dated 17.11.2022. Against the said order, the appellant filed the Appeal Dy. No. 1050/2022 before this Appellate Tribunal, which was finally disposed off vide order dated 01.12.2022 with direction to the DRT, Allahabad to consider and decide the S.A. No. 210/2021 most expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the said order.

It is also contended that the aforesaid order of this Appellate Tribunal dated 01.12.2022 was filed before the DRT on 05.12.2022, but the DRT, Allahabad did not decide the matter within three months, on account of which the interim protection, which was granted by this Appellate Tribunal for a limited period, had elapsed after three months of passing of that order. It is contended that vide order dated 18.05.2022, the DRT posted the matter for final hearing on 06.06.2023, copy of which has been appended at page no. 52 of the paper book. It is further contended that before the said date, the respondent-Bank issued a notice dated 19.05.2023 for taking over the possession of the property in question on 02.06.2023, therefore, the appellant moved an application before the DRT for grant of interim relief till the S.A. No. 210/2021 is decided, but the same was rejected. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

It is also contended that the said S.A. is still pending and is posted for final argument on 06.06.2023. It is, therefore, prayed that the interest of the appellant may be protected till the S.A. is finally decided.

The law officer of the respondent-Bank submits that due to some personal difficulty, Shri Maneesh mehrotra, who is counsel in the present case, is unable to appear before this court today, hence she requests that the notice may be issued to the respondent-bank so that the counsel for the respondent-Bank may respond.

Since the matter is not being heard on merits, but there is only one ground that as the S.A. has not been decided by the Tribunal below within the stipulated period and in interregnum, the interim protection granted by this Tribunal has elapsed and now the date fixed by the DRT for final argument in the said S.A. is 06.06.2023, therefore, it would be appropriate to protect the interest of the appellant. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is provided that for a period of 15 days from today or till the date fixed by the DRT i.e. 06.06.2023, if the case is heard and decided, the status quo with regard to the property in question as it exists today shall be maintained by all the parties concerned.

In the above terms, the appeal stands disposed off.