Summary: A recent court decision in Pune has stopped the sale of a family property during a complicated legal fight involving claims of family rights and money owed. The court sided with Aishwarya Chetan Khedkar, who argued for her share as a family member, leading to a legal standoff with banks.
The legal fight started when Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited (TFCI) filed a case against Aishwarya Chetan Khedkar and her family, challenging a previous court decision that favored Aishwarya. The case involved property in Pune, specifically the Hotel Aishwarya Regency, which was under financial scrutiny due to unpaid debts.
TFCI had given financial support to Aishwarya Regency LLP, with Aishwarya's parents promising to pay if the company couldn't. When the company didn't pay back, TFCI took legal steps to get their money back, including taking over the property on March 15, 2023.
"The borrower had resorted to unlawful means to dispossess the secured creditor after the possession of the secured assets was delivered under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act."
Aishwarya filed a case claiming her rights as a family member to the property, trying to stop its sale. Her first request to stop the sale was denied, but she successfully appealed, leading to a court order on January 24, 2025, protecting her share of the property.
Judge N.J. Jamadar ruled in favor of Aishwarya, stating that her rights as a family member were clear and needed protection. The court found that the property was a family inheritance, contradicting claims that it was only owned by her father.
"The learned District Judge was thus within his rights in correcting the manifest error committed by the leaned Civil Judge."
Despite the court order, TFCI went ahead with the property's auction, selling it to Eastman Garments Pvt Ltd. The sale was contested, with the court eventually declaring it invalid due to the ongoing order to stop the sale.
"The purported sale of the suit property by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 8 is non-est in the eyes of law."
The court emphasized the importance of respecting orders to stop sales, stating that any sale against such orders is illegal. The decision highlights the challenges of balancing financial recovery with protecting family rights.
This case highlights the complicated nature of property disputes involving family claims and financial obligations, setting an example for similar legal battles in the future.
