Smita Sushilchandra Narvekar v. Rajpur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Facts:

Arguments by Appellant:

The main contention raised by the appellant is regarding the challenge to the auction sale of the mortgaged property. It is argued that the reserve price for the property needed to be properly fixed based on appropriate valuation. The appellant has also challenged that the sale amount was not deposited on time by the auction purchaser (fourth respondent). It is contended that the property was sold at a throwaway price. The appellant had earlier challenged the infirmity in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, which was not considered by the DRT. Subsequently, the appeal was amended to raise contentions regarding the valuation of the property, insufficiency of the notice under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and that the reserve price was much lesser than the market value.

Arguments by Respondents:

The respondent bank had contested the S.A. before the DRT, contending that there was a delay in filing the S.A. and that the appellant was aware of the mortgage and proceedings initiated by the bank. It was stated that the order of the Assistant Registrar, Rajapur is being challenged in revision. The bank argued that the appellant had deliberately failed to appear before the Co-operative Court, resulting in an ex-parte decree. The fourth respondent (auction purchaser) filed a reply stating that the auction process was duly followed, the sale consideration was deposited, the sale was confirmed, a sale certificate was issued, possession was handed over, and the sale agreement was registered. The fourth respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

The Court observed that the main contention raised by the appellant is regarding the challenge to the auction sale of the mortgaged property. It noted that the sale took place on 04.01.2010, and the S.A. was dismissed subsequently vide order dated 27.09.2010. No protection order was granted in favor of the appellant. The Court held that although the appellant had challenged the sale notice, the sufficiency of the reserve price and the valuation of the property were not challenged at any time. It stated that each SARFAESI measure is a fresh cause of action, which could have been challenged by the appellant. However, since the appellant did not challenge the measures pertaining to the sale of the property, reliefs concerning the sale cannot be obtained in the appeal. The Court did not find any error in the judgment and order of the DRT and concluded that the appeal is without any merits, requiring dismissal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Sections and Laws Referred:

No specific cases were cited by the Court in this order.

The Court has dealt with the issue of challenging the auction sale of the mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act. It has considered the relevant facts, arguments of the appellant and respondents, and the applicable legal provisions. The Court has given a reasoned order, dismissing the appeal as the appellant failed to challenge the specific SARFAESI measures related to the auction sale at the appropriate stage before the DRT.