Disposed

Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. South Indian Bank

DRAT20 Sept 2022MISC APPEAL/31/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, disposed of a miscellaneous appeal challenging an order refusing an ex parte stay in SARFAESI proceedings. The court held that the underlying issues were best decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal for expeditious adjudication and thus disposed of both the appeal and related interim applications.

What did the court decide?

Disposed the appeal as well as the two related interim applications pending before the Tribunal.

Phoenix Arc Private Limited versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Appeal No.31/2022 Arising out of S.A.No.52/2022 (DRT-I, Delhi)

¶3

Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs

¶4

South Indian Bank

¶5

20.09.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶6

Present: Mr. Suresh Dutt Dobhal along with Mr. Ripul Sweeti, Ld. Counsel appears for appellant FI.

¶7

Mr. S.K. Garg, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank.

¶8

This matter has been taken up by me through Video

¶9

Conferencing.

¶10

Miscellaneous Appeal No.31/2022

¶11

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant FI against the impugned order dated 05.02.2022 passed by Ld. PO. DRT-I, Delhi in S.A. No. 52 of 2002 which runs as follows:

¶12

“3. Ld. Senior Advocate for the S. applicant requests for granting exparte stay against the symbolic possession as well as the entire SARFAESI proceedings initiated against the property in question.

¶13

Since, the respondent bank has taken only symbolic possession of the property in question and even no notice of this S.A. has been issued to the respondents, therefore, in my view it would not be appropriate to pass any exparte stay order without hearing other respondents.

¶14

Issue notice to this securitization application to the respondents. Registry is directed to prepare notice. Applicant in SA is directed to serve the notices upon the respondents along with copy of this securitization application through all modes including email/whatsaaps and file the proof of service by way of affidavit on the next date of hearing.

¶15

Ld. Counsel for appellant FI submits despite prayers for granting exparte stay against the symbolic possession as well as SARFAESI measures of the South Indian Bank, the Ld. PO, DRT-I, Delhi observed in the impugned order dated 05.02.2022 that it would not be appropriate to pass any exparte stay without hearing other respondents and only issued notice to the respondents which will cause irreparable loss to the applicant FI to recover its dues from the borrowers. He has, therefore, prayed that South Indian Bank may be restrained from taking

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

any measures/action qua the property bearing House No.52, Block-E, First Floor, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter refer as property in question) till the adjudication of the present appeal or till the adjudication of S.A. No. 52/2022 pending before Ld. DRT-I, Delhi.

¶18

Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent bank i.e. South Indian Bank submits that reply to the present appeal has been filed. The present appeal is barred by law of limitation as the same is not filed within 30 days from the date of order. Even otherwise, the present appeal is baseless and is not maintainable under law as till date no interim order has been passed by Ld. DRT-I, Delhi.

¶19

At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for appellant FI submits that he has filed two application i.e. I.A. No. 222/2022 & 223/2022 seeking direction from this Tribunal directing the South Indian Bank to file on affidavit submitting the complete copy of (i) Fraud Monitoring Report being FMR No. SOUT 1901-0013 dated 04.02.2019 filed by South Indian Bank before Reserve Bank of India and (ii) Criminal complaint filed by South Indian Bank against the borrower (as mentioned in email dated 06.04.2022 sent by South Indian Bank to Reserve Bank of India); and initiate appropriate actions against Mr. Ashish (signatory of reply filed by South Indian Bank to the appeal filed by Phoenix ARC) for commission of offence of perjury respectively.

¶20

Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records. This Tribunal is of the view that it will be better if Ld. DRT-I, Delhi decides the aforesaid issues raised by the appellant FI and passes appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for the parties have no objection to the same.

¶22

With the above observations, both the applications i.e. I.A. No. 222/2022 & 223/2022 as well as present appeal stands disposed of.

¶23

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶24

Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Parveen Bajaj versus Standard Chartered Bank

Gulshan Kumar Bajaj versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Usha Bedi

Hana Motors Plaza Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank

A K Singh versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Kuldeep Sankhala versus Bank of Baroda