Mr. Dipak Digambar Naik And Ors vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 23 Bom

                                                                       WP2714.15.doc




                                                                       
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                               
                  WRIT PETITION NO.2714 OF 2015




                                              
    Mr Dipak Digambar Naik and others            ... Petitioners
        v/s
    Bank of Maharashtra and another              ... Respondents

Mr Rafiq Peermohammad with Mr Gaurang Kinkhabwala, Ms Sonali Jain and Ms Shreya Deshpande i/b M/s Kaikini Phadke and Associates for Petitioners.

Ms Rathina Marvarman for Respondent No.1.

Mr M.S. Bharadwaj for DRAT.

CORAM: V.M. KANADE &

B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.

Reserved on : 29th July, 2015

Pronounced on : 10th August, 2015

JUDGMENT [ Per B.P. Colabawalla J. ] :-

1. "Hope springs eternal in the human breast" is the best

way to describe this Petition. This Petition is one more attempt, in

VRD 1 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

many, to try and stall the measures taken by the Respondent - bank

under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the

SARFAESI Act). For the reasons stated hereafter, we have no

hesitation in dismissing this Petition and imposing heavy costs on the

Petitioners.

2.

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have assailed the

order dated 12th March, 2015 passed by the DRAT, Mumbai in

Appeal No.64 of 2014. This Appeal was filed by the Respondent -

Bank against the order dated 8th January, 2014 passed by the DRT,

Pune under which Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were allowed to redeem the

secured property bearing Plot No.41, Ex-Servicemen Co-op. Society,

CTS No.406, S.No.48/2, Paud Road, Village Erandwane, Pune,

consisting of basement, ground, first and second floor (the

mortgaged property), for a sum of Rs.1,65,05,000/-, even though

admittedly, the dues of the Bank, for which this property was secured,

was an amount of Rs.23,12,15,977.99 as on 18th February, 2014. We

were informed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent -

    VRD                                                                          2 of 17





                                                                            WP2714.15.doc

Bank that as on date, the dues owed to the Respondent - Bank are

over Rs.30,00,00,000/-.

3. When arguments were first heard in this Writ Petition, the

Petitioners submitted that they had filed M.A. No.159 of 2015 in

Appeal No.64 of 2014 filed by the Respondent - Bank inter alia

seeking to restrain the Respondent - Bank from taking physical

possession of the mortgaged property. It is the case of the Petitioners

that this Misc. Application was argued by the Petitioners on 12th

March, 2015 and no arguments were advanced by them in Appeal

No.64 of 2014 which was filed by the Respondent - Bank. In these

circumstances, it was urged before us that the DRAT, Mumbai could

not have passed the order dated 12th March, 2015 allowing the Appeal

filed by the Bank when in fact it was only the Misc Application that

was argued and heard by the DRAT. It was therefore submitted that

the order of the DRAT dated 12th March, 2015 was vitiated on the

grounds of impropriety and breach of principles of natural justice and

required interference by us in our extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

    VRD                                                                          3 of 17





                                                                          WP2714.15.doc

4. In view of the specific stand taken by the Petitioners, we

had directed the DRAT, Mumbai to submit a report to this Court. The

DRAT has submitted its report in which it is mentioned that both, the

Appeal (Appeal No.64 of 2014) as well as the Miscellaneous

Application (M. A. No.159 of 2015) were disposed of on 12th March,

2015. Even otherwise, from the record, we find that counsel for the

Petitioners as well as the Respondent - Bank were present and were

heard by the DRAT as recorded in the impugned order. In fact, a

separate order has been passed in M. A. No.159 of 2015 by the DRAT

on the same day which categorically records that since the Appeal

itself is disposed of, nothing survives in the Miscellaneous

Application, and the same is also disposed of accordingly. In view of

the specific orders passed by the DRAT, as well as the report

submitted to this Court, we are unable to take cognizance of the

argument on behalf of the Petitioners that only M. A. No.159 of 2015

was argued on 12th March, 2015 and that Appeal No.64 of 2014 was

allowed without hearing the Petitioners.

5. Be that as it may, and not to give an opportunity to the

VRD 4 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

Petitioners to make any grievance about the fact that they were

allegedly not heard, we have heard the Petitioners in this Writ Petition

and are clearly of the view that the impugned order of the DRAT

dated 12th March, 2015 requires no interference by us under article

226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the DRAT has correctly

set aside the order passed the DRT, Pune dated 8th January, 2014

under which the DRT allowed Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to redeem the

mortgaged property for a sum of Rs.1,65,05,000/-, when in fact, the

dues of the Respondent - Bank for which this property was secured,

were more than Rs.23,00,00,000/- as on 18th February, 2014.

6. The brief facts for the purpose of disposing of the present

Petition are that the Respondent - Bank had sanctioned certain credit

facilities to Petitioner No.3 alongwith Petitioner No.1 who was the

guarantor for the said transaction. The mortgaged property was

owned by one Smt Vimala Naik (who expired on 4th September,

2010), and Petitioner No.1. This property was mortgaged by the said

deceased alongwith Petitioner No.1 for securing the dues of the

Respondent - Bank. As defaults were committed in repayment of the

VRD 5 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

facilities, the Respondent - Bank initiated proceedings under the

SARFAESI Act by issuing a notice dated 21st April, 2010 under

section 13(2) thereof. In furtherance of the proceedings under the

SARFAESI Act, the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Pune City,

Pune, Khadakmal Ali, Pune (Respondent No.2 herein), passed an

order dated 11th September, 2012 under section 14 of the SARFAESI

Act. This order under section 14, was challenged by Petitioner Nos.1

and 2 before the DRT, Pune, by filing Securitization Application

No.121 of 2012. It is important to note that as recorded in the order

of the DRT, Pune, creation of the mortgage has not been disputed and

there is a finding of fact in the said order that the said property was

mortgaged by Smt Vimala Naik alongwith Petitioner No.1 who were

the owners thereof.

7. The contention raised by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 before the

DRT, Pune was that they were ready to redeem the mortgaged

property and therefore, there was no question of proceeding further

under the SARFAESI Act. It was contended by Petitioner Nos.1 and

2 that the mortgaged property was valued at Rs.1,65,05,000/- and that

VRD 6 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

they were willing to pay the said price for the purpose of redemption

of the mortgaged property. Though this Application was vehemently

opposed by the Respondent - Bank, this argument seems to have

found favour with the DRT, Pune, and by its order dated 8th January

2014, the DRT, Pune allowed the said Securitization Application

No.121 of 2012 and directed Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of

Rs.1,65,05,000/- towards redemption of the mortgaged property in the

following manner :-

(i) 25% of the amount within one month from 8th January, 2014; and

(ii) the balance 75% of the amount in five equal

monthly installments;

8. It is important to note that the DRT, Pune also directed

that in case Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 failed to follow the above

repayment schedule, the Respondent - Bank was at liberty to

appropriate the payments already made, if any, and thereafter dispose

of the mortgaged property in accordance with law. Being aggrieved

by this order, on 28th February 2014, the Respondent - Bank filed

Appeal No.64 of 2014 before the DRAT, Mumbai. The Petitioners

VRD 7 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

herein did not challenge this order of the DRT, Pune.

9. It appears that in part compliance of the order of the DRT,

Pune, Petitioner No.2 deposited through RTGS a sum of

Rs.41,26,250/- with the Respondent - Bank in the account of

Petitioner No.3. It is an admitted fact before us that the balance 75%

of the amount, as directed by the DRT, Pune, was not deposited in

five equal monthly installments. In fact, no further amount has been

deposited by the Petitioners. Furthermore, it is also an admitted fact

that till date, no application for extending the time to make the

aforesaid payment has been made by the Petitioners to the DRT,

Pune. In view of the fact that the Petitioners had not adhered to the

time schedule as set out in the order of the DRT, Pune, the

Respondent - Bank was entitled to proceed to take possession of the

mortgaged property. In view thereof, Respondent No.2 (i.e.

Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Pune City, Pune, Khadakmal

Ali, Pune), issued a notice dated 5th January, 2015 to the Petitioners

for the purpose of taking physical possession of the mortgaged

property. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioners moved M.

    VRD                                                                        8 of 17





                                                                            WP2714.15.doc

A. No.159 of 2015 in Appeal No.64 of 2014 to restrain the

Respondent - Bank from implementing and/or taking action as per the

said notice dated 5th January, 2015.

10. To our mind, once Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 did not adhere

to the time schedule set out in the order of the DRT, Pune, coupled

with the fact that the Respondent - Bank was thereafter granted

liberty to take possession of the mortgaged property and dispose it of

in accordance with law, the Appeal filed before the DRAT, Mumbai

itself did not survive. However, from the record it appears that the

DRAT heard the Miscellaneous Application No.159 of 2015 as well

as Appeal No.64 of 2014 (filed by the Respondent - Bank), in view of

the fact that the DRT, Pune had allowed redemption of the mortgaged

property for a sum of Rs.1,65,05,000/- when in fact, the dues of the

Bank were to the tune of more than Rs.23,00,00,000/- as on 18th

February, 2014. The DRAT therefore proceeded to hear the Appeal

itself and thereafter set aside the order of the DRT, Pune.

11. We have perused the orders passed by the DRT, Pune as

VRD 9 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

well as the order of the DRAT impugned in this Writ Petition. On

going through the aforesaid orders, we find that the DRAT was fully

justified in setting aside the order of the DRT, Pune. We are clearly

of the view that the DRT, Pune could not have allowed redemption of

the mortgaged property for the sum of Rs.1,65,05,000/- when the

mortgage was created for securing the dues of the Bank which was in

excess of Rs.23,00,00,000/- as on 18th February, 2014. In fact, even

the principal amount (as per the facilities granted by the Respondent -

Bank) was to the tune of Rs.12.30 crores. In this regard, it would be

apposite to refer to the provisions of section 60 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882 which read as under:-

"60. Right of mortgagor to redeem.-- At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-

money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee,

(b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at

the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have registered an acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished:

    VRD                                                                             10 of 17





                                                                               WP2714.15.doc

Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of a Court.

The right conferred by this section is called a right to redeem and a suit to enforce it is called a suit for redemption.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to render invalid any provision to the effect that, if the time fixed for payment of the principal money has been allowed to pass or no such time has been fixed, the mortgagee shall be entitled to reasonable notice before

payment or tender of such money.

Redemption of portion of mortgaged property.--Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a

proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only where a mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgagees

than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor.

(emphasis supplied)

12. Section 60 clearly provides that at any time after the

principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right to seek

redemption of the mortgaged property on him paying or tendering the

mortgage money. If the mortgage money is paid/tendered as required

under section 60, the mortgagee is required (a) to deliver to the

mortgagor the mortgage deed and all documents relating to the

mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the

mortgagee; (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged

property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor; and (c) at the

VRD 11 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

cost of the mortgagor, either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to

him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where

the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have

registered, an acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation

of his interest transferred to the mortgagee, has been extinguished.

The said section further provides that nothing therein shall entitle a

person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem

his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount

remaining due on the mortgage, except where a mortgagee, or if there

are more mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have

acquired, in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor. This section

therefore clearly provides that a mortgaged property cannot be

redeemed on payment of a part of the mortgage money. If the

mortgaged property has to be redeemed in terms of section 60 of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the entire mortgage money has to be

tendered in terms of section 60, before redemption can be ordered.

The only exception is when a mortgagee has acquired, in whole or in

part, the share of a mortgagor. We find that the DRT, Pune has

completely lost sight of this fundamental principle enshrined in

VRD 12 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. We therefore find

that the DRAT, Mumbai was fully justified in setting aside the order

passed by the DRT, Pune.

13. Having said this, we will now deal with the decision of

this Court in the case of Bank of Poona, now merged with Sangli

Bank Ltd., v/s Navrajasthan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Poona

and others1 which has been relied upon by the DRT, Pune. In the

order passed by the DRT, Pune, the observation with reference to this

decision is as follows:-

"The above inference is supported by law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Poona Vs Navrajasthan

Co-op. Housing society Ltd., Poona and others (AIR 1968 Bombay

106)"

14. To our mind, the reliance placed on the aforesaid decision

is totally misplaced. The facts before the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Bank of Poona (supra) was that a portion of the

mortgaged property was sold by the mortgagor. The mortgagee, not

knowing this fact, obtained a decree, and in execution thereof, itself

1 AIR 1968 BOMBAY 106 : 1967 SCC OnLine Bom 34

VRD 13 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

purchased the entire mortgaged property. The purchaser from the

mortgagor was not made a party to the suit. It was in these

circumstances, and taking into consideration the provisions of Order

34 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that this Court held

the purchaser could redeem only the portion purchased by him on

payment of the proportionate amount, as he was not a party to the suit

in which the decree was passed in favour of the bank. The Court held

that the sale in execution, although valid and effective as against the

mortgagors who were parties to the action, did not affect the right of

redemption of the purchaser from the mortgagor, inasmuch as he had

not been impleaded as a party to the action as required under Order 34

Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. We fail to see how this

decision supports the case of the Petitioners that a mortgagor can

redeem a mortgaged property on part payment of the mortgaged

money. In fact, paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 [of the SCC OnLine Report]

supports the view that we have taken earlier, and read thus:-

"8. The question then is what are the rights of the Society as an assignee of a portion of the mortgaged property in its favour under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. We would like to consider the question first apart from authorities. The relevant sections which fall to be considered are ss. 60, 82 and 91 of the

VRD 14 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

Transfer of Property Act. Section 60 defines the rights and liabilities of the mortgagor. The first part of the section entitles

him to redeem the property as soon as the mortgage amount becomes payable it being subject to the proviso, "Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by the act

of the parties or by decree of a Court". The last clause in this section is relevant and it is:

"Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own

share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only where a mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgages than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired in whole or in part,

the share of a mortgagor".

9. Now, the purport of this section seems to be very clear. As soon

as the mortgage money falls due the mortgagor is entitled to redeem the property. But this right is subject to the continued existence of the mortgage. If the right is extinguished either say by

conveyance of the said right by the mortgagor to the mortgagee by a voluntary act or by a decree of a Court such as one of foreclosure or by a completed sale in execution, then, the right could no longer subsist. Subsequent provisions must be read in the light of this fundamental requirement. The last clause in this

section provides that where a mortgagor owns only a share of the mortgaged property to be redeemed, he cannot break up the

mortgage and insist on redemption of his share only. He must, if he wants to redeem the property, redeem the entire mortgage. To this again there is an exception and that is where a part of the equity of redemption is acquired by the mortgagee he can redeem his share

only. The exception in this clause is a consequence to the proviso to the first part of the section and recognises the principle that redemption of the mortgage can be only to the extent to which the equity of redemption is not extinguished. As has been frequently observed this rule has been enacted both for the benefit of the

mortgagor and mortgagee in order to prevent multiplicity of suits.

If redemption can be permitted in part each one of the sharers may institute separate suit against the mortgagee without making other sharers parties and there may even be conflicting decrees and confusion and chaos may result. Similarly, if the mortgagee was entitled to file separate suits against the co-sharers a similar result may follow. Where, however, the mortgagee acquires a part of the

VRD 15 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

property the mortgage is broken up and the sharer is entitled to redeem his share only.

10. Section 91 provides for right of redemption and enables amongst others redemption of the property by any person who has

any interest in, or charge upon, the property mortgaged or in or upon the right to redeem the same, except the mortgagee of the interest sought to be redeemed. Under this section a co-mortgagor is entitled to redeem the mortgage and when read with the last

clause of s. 60 already referred to he must redeem the whole of the mortgage but if the exception in that clause applies then of course he can redeem his share."

(emphasis supplied)

15.

It is indeed not the case of the Petitioners that the facts in

present case would fall within the exception carved out in section 60

of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

16. In this view of the matter, we find absolutely no merit in

this Writ Petition and the same is hereby dismissed. We find from the

record that the Petitioners have been trying to constantly thwart and

frustrate the proceedings initiated by the Respondent - Bank by filing

one application after another. The details of these proceedings are set

out at paragraph 12 of the Affidavit of Mr. Manish Kumar Madhukar

(Senior Manager Law, of the Respondent - Bank) dated 28th April,

2015, in reply to the Writ Petition. We, therefore, are of the view that

VRD 16 of 17

WP2714.15.doc

this is a fit case to award costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the

Petitioners jointly and / or severally to the Respondent - Bank within

a period of two weeks from today.

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

After the judgment was pronounced, the learned counsel for the

Petitioner sought continuation of the interim stay granted earlier by

this Court. In view of what we have held earlier, we are unable to

accede to this request.

    (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)                   (V.M. KANADE, J.)






    VRD                                                                       17 of 17