CJI #SupremeCourt abuses authority 2help Bank of India cheat by faking delivery of auctionedproperty

that DRT Pune conducted public Auction of secured asset, of premises commonly known as Pavitra hall on Satara Road Pune in February 2006 in administration of justice to recover about Rs 34 lacs from defaulting borrower Sona Alluminium. That bid of Pradip Bhansali, Hemant Bhandari, Sachin Chopra, & Mangesh Ekbote (Auction Purchasers, APs) was successful, they paid total price of Rs 66 lacs and got sale certificate registered in their name by spending another four lacs. (3) but defaulting borrower was a famous criminal who resisted transfer of possession to successful bidders. (4) bank of India therefore suggested DRT to appoint Yadav Consultancy services Pvt Ltd (YCS) as Court commissioner and YCS was appointed as Court Commissioner by DRT on 26.7.2006 for specific task of taking possession of auction property and maintain it till further orders of DRT. Bank was directed to pay charges of YCS. (5) YCS took possession of property on 9.11.2006 and it was decided to be handed over to APs on 13.11.2006. Bank took "Acknowledgement of Possession" in advance from APs. however physical possession could not be handed over to APs on 13.11.2006 because of obstruction by police on basis of stay orders in MCA157/2006. And there was stay by orders of DRAT Mumbai since 14.11.2006.  Since possession was not handed over original acknowledgement of possession was torn off.  And YCS had to continue holding possession. Bank paid charges of YCS for maintenance of property till 8.5.2007 and did not pay thereafter. DRT repeatedly directed Bank to pay charges of YCS vide order dated 29.3.2007 but still Bank did not pay therefore DRT issued a show cause notice dated 12. 6.2007 to bank which bank challenged before DRAT who directed DRT to decide about discontinuing services of YCS. DRT on 29.6.2007 passed an order directing Bank to pay update charges of YCS and take over possession of property but bank did not do anything, and possession continued to be with YCS. (6) Bank also challenged show cause notice dated 12.6.2007 before presiding officer DRT by misrepresenting that physical possession of property was handed over by YCS to APs on 13.11.2006 therefore it was APs who were liable to pay charges of YCS and not Bank. Presiding officer DRT passed an exparte order dated 24.7.2008 directing Recovery officer DRT to recover charges of YCS from APs. But APs refused as they had not received physical possession.  DRT closed recovery proceedings and paid Rs 34 lacs out of sales proceeds received from APS to Bank of India and paid balance to Bank of baroda to clear its dues from Sona Alluminium. (7) meanwhile YCS was not paid charges for maintenance therefore YCS filed petition before MSMED Facilitation council and an award was passed in favor of YCS, which was upheld by District court in MCA352/13, and by High court Bombay in ARA15/14 & execution proceedings in Darkhast 1741/12. (8) bank challenged order of High court Bombay in ARA15/14 by SLP before Supreme court which was converted to CA5150/17. Bank misrepresented on basis of "acknowledgement of possession" saying on oath that physical possession was handed over to APs on 13.11.2006 therefore Supreme court impleaded APs to proceedings and transferred liability of payment of charges after 24.7.2008 on APs. APS appeared and informed that they have not received possession therefore they cannot accept  liability.  They also submitted copy of Death Certificate of Pradeep Bhansali, but still supreme court passed order against deceased Pradip Bhansali which rendered order dated 5.12.17 in CA5150/17 to be null and void.  APs filed review reiterating truth, but it was dismissed. APs also filed Curative, but it was also dismissed. (9) YCS was relieved of responsibility of maintenance of property by Supreme Court vide order dated 13.7.2017 therefore YCS issued two notices to DRT praying to take over possession, but when DRT did not YCS withdrew its security from 8.8.2017.  (10) taking advantage of situation defaulting borrower walvekar of Sona aluminum illegally entered secured asset premises and started renovating APs approached DRT informing that walvekar has illegally entered premises and therefore he should be restrained and premises should be handed over to APs, however DRT refused saying that because Supreme Court has already held that physical possession is already handed over to APs on 13.11.2006 and therefore DRT cannot again transfer possession. Walvekar therefore leased secured asset to Dhone Wheels who is running a KIA Motor show room by paying about Rs 6 lacs monthly rent to walvekar .(11) Because statutory and constitutional rights of YCS were breached by order dated 5.12.17 in CA5150/17  for being nullity and non est in eyes of law, therefore YCS approached Supreme court vide WP189/18 but supreme court  said that it has not refused statutory/constitutional rights of YCS but since executioner court and bank at Pune are violating statutory/constitutional rights of YCS therefore YCS should approach high court Bombay u/a 226. accordingly, YCS withdrew WP189/18 and filed WP3809/18, WP2847/22, WP9159/22 before high court Bombay  (12)  YCS had filed an application before DRT seeking legal proceedings of Perjury, criminal breach of trust against bank for misusing "acknowledgement of possession"  however DRT refused to initiate criminal proceedings against bank because of its jurisdiction under RDDB Act to recover dues of Institutionalized creditors but granted liberty to YCS to initiate appropriate proceedings against bank. YCS filed MCrA 2446/21 before Chief judicial magistrate Pune, where learned chief judicial magistrate took cognizance and converted MCrA 2446/21 into RCC2917/23. Judicial magistrate directed police to conduct investigation u/s 202 of CrPC. Police conducted investigation and submitted report on 1.9.23 saying that Bank has indeed misrepresented before DRT and Supreme court that physical possession is delivered to APs on 13.11.2006. Since statutory and constitutional rights of YCS were breached by order dated 5.12.17 in CA5150/17 by misrepresentation therefore YCS invoked constitutional remedy u/a 32 of constitution and filed WPDno 4554/24 however constitutional remedy was refused by saying that orders of Supreme court do no injustice and therefore cannot be challenged. (13)  APs are compelled to file special civil suit1549/25 before district judge pune to demand physical possession of property purchased in public auction.  (14)  high court did not ascertain rights of YCS as per sec 16 @MSMED Act 2006 or recall order for being passed by fraud as per sec 44 of Evidence act in WP3809/18, WP2847/22 & WP9159/22. YCS therefore filed SLP 12289/26 & 12290/26 which were dismissed by calling bad words to humiliate YCS on 2.4.2026 without taking note of submissions or without allowing YCS to submit true facts orally.

There is no law that justifies non delivery of physical possession of property purchased in public auction, there is no law that justifies delaying payment of MSE but Supreme court has been abusing authority and blanket immunity by non judicial acts for last 14 years to deny possession of property whose price is paid, and deny service charges with penal interest of MSE