BEFORE THE HONOURABLE RECOVERY OFFICER 1 AT MUMBAI
Misc. Application No. : of 2007
R. P. NO. 07 of 2006
The Bharat Overseas Bank .Applicant
Indur Kartar Chhugani . .. Intervener
Age : Adult, Occ. Business,
R/o. : No.501 / 502, Pinky Panaroma,
Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052.
Objection to proceed with attachment proceedings in respect of property bearing No.501, Pinky Panaroma, Plot No.215, 6th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052.
On behalf of the abovenamed Intervener it is most respectfully submitted that:
1. The applicant bank has obtained the attachment warrant for flat 501, Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing Society, with malafide intentions of wanting to harass the intervener and his wife Mrs Rekha I Chhugani, who together with their son purchased the combined flat 501 /502 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing Society. 502 has been purchased jointly by the intervener and his son Sushil I Chhugani. Had the intentions been for Recovery, the bank would have attached flat 701 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing Society, where the principal borrower Mr. Rajkumar Basantani resided for over 10 years and which property continues to remain registered in his name till today. This property is not even mortgaged to any bank or institution. The Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. is aware of all these facts, through the proceedings at the MPID court.
2. That the applicant bank has obtained attachment warrant of the above referred property by concealing numerous material facts very much within their specific knowledge, Before coming to the facts, the intervener wishes to place on record, the background of the case.
3. The intervener had been residing at flat 201/202 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing, since 1994. he was the Chairman of the Society and Mr. Rajkumar Basantani the principal defaulter was the Secretary of the Society.
4. While the intervener was residing at 201/202 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing. Mr Mihir Datta Chief Manager, Bharat Overseas Bank and Authorised Officer under SARFAESI Act. approached the intervener for help in determining the actual area of the flat 501, mortgaged to the bank, as the valuation report, in his possession, obtained while sanctioning the loan of Rs 5 crores, showed it as 2000 sq ft valued at Rs 2 crores.The intervener explained in great detail. through agreement copies from Society records, that it was only 641 sq. ft.
6. As the flat on 5th floor 501 /502 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing was completely identical to flat 201 / 202 on the 2nd floor owned by the intervener and his wife, Mr. Mihir Datta who was the Authorised Officer under SARFAESI Act requested the intervener to allow his valuer TECHN-O-AID CONSULTANTS Pvt. Ltd., to make a fresh valuation for flat 501 after visiting flat 201 /202 of the intervener. Accordingly on the request of Mr. Mihir Datta Authorised Officer unnder SARFAESI Act, the valuation report was prepared by the valuer after visiting flat 201 /202 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing Society. Valuation report is Annex A.
Mr. Mihir Datta requested the intervener to accompany him
Further the facts are as under:
(a) The applicant bank had taken action against the Respondent No.4 i.e. Seema Investments Private Limited under the SARFAESI Act.
(b) The Applicant
bank has already secured the said property which is a
joint single flat along with flat No. 502, belonging to a
third party i.e. Punjab National Bank, with one single
entrance door; and obtained the physical possession
(c) The Applicant bank and Punjab National Bank had formed joint committee for sale of joint flats being flat Nos.501 and 502. The reason was this flat No. 501 was not independent flat but the same is combined with flat No.502 as stated above, which was mortgage with Punjab National bank, who has also got physical possession on 12/10/2004 through Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court. The fact is that these two combined flats have only one single entrance, hence the registrar had put one lock on the door and had two keys of the said lock. One key each was given to both the banks
joint bid by the intervener and his wife Mrs Rekha I
Chhugani was accepted on 18/02/2005 with earnest money
deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-. By
(f) Thereafter on account of MPID court having taken action against the Respondent No.1 i.e. Sound craft Industries Ltd; both the banks were required to attend MPID court, and reply to a notice issued to them, as to why these flats should not be attached under the MPID Act. The 2 banks had filed their say, stating that since these flats were mortgaged to them, they could not be attached under the MPID act or under any other act by any court, as the property, they had already secured under the SARFAESI Act through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates court on 12/10/04.
(g) After a Police Officer informed the court, of the intervener residing in the said flat, the court asked the Banks, how they had sold the property, which was sealed by the Police officer on 8th February 05, (a false claim made by the police officer) without getting a clearance from the MPID court and indicated, strict action including sending the managers to Jail, for breaking court seal.. It was at this stage that the bank officials denied having called for tenders or having given inspection of flat on 12th February 05 or having sold the flat to the intervener and his wife or having given possession to the intervener. So the court ordered a FIR to be filed against the intervener and the case of the joint committee having sold the flat to the intervener and her husband got complicated. Earlier they had taken the precaution of delaying the issue of sale certificate, giving some excuse. They therefore tried to save their skin, by sacrificing the interest of the intervener and his wife.
(h) The Intervener was arrested, after release on bail, he filed numerous applications in the MPID court, after which the 2 banks admitted that they had formed a sale committee, called for tenders, opened the flats for inspection on 12th February 05, found the intervener and his wife were the only bidders, the payment was collected. But they refused to admit having sold the flat or having given possession.
the matters pertaining with said subject are pending with
the Honble High Court. In the meantime the
(j) Just as at the MPID court, they did not inform the court of true facts, only later admitted them, in a similar way Mr. Mihir Datta Chief Manager, Bharat Overseas Bank and Authorised Officer under SARFAESI act has cheated this Hon. Authority by concealing vital information and has procured the said order of attachment, which otherwise is not permissible under the law since provisions of the SARFAESI Act overrides the law governing the D. R. T.
(k) Wife of the
intervener has therefore filed an appeal bearing
No.11/2007 against attachment order passed on
Exhibit No. 22. Respondent Bank has filed application
showing photographs of attachment notice pasted on the
Garage door, in the compound of the building on ground
floor. This Garage continues to be in the possession of
Respondent Bank, since
(m) There is no flat 501 on which any attachment order can be pasted, there is only one door leading to 501 /502 flat. And flat 502 belongs to the intervener jointly with his son Mr Sushil I Chhugani. The Applicant bank has concealed all the above relevant fact.
8. Since the attachment order for flat 501 also affects flat 502 belonging to the intervener I therefore humbly request, to kindly look in to the matter and quash the attachment order passed and initiate action against the Mr. Mihir Datta Chief Manager, Bharat Overseas Bank and Authorised Officer under SARFAESI Act, for concealing facts and cheating this Honourable Tribunal.
I repeat, reiterate and confirm whatever stated herein is true and correct and to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I Indur Kartar Chhugani, the Appellant abovenamed, R/o. : Mumbai, do hereby state that I have read the contents of the foregoing paragraphs and whatever stated therein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, for which I affirm and sign as below.
Mumbai : /07/2007 Indur Kartar Chhugani
Identified by me
Advocate for Appell