Dismissed

M/S Sahdev Brothers v. State Bank of India

DRAT26 Aug 2022MISC APPLICATION/72/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the appendix's application to transfer recovery proceedings due to alleged arbitrary conduct by a Recovery Officer held under the RDB Act. The court noted that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply and that the correct remedy is an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking transfer of recovery proceedings from one Recovery Officer to another was dismissed.

M/S Sahdev Brothers versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Application No.72/2022

¶3

Arising out of O.A.No.433/2019 (DRT, Jaipur)

M/s Sahdev Brothers

State Bank of India

26.08.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice BrijeshSethi

¶8

Present: Mr. Mohit Mishra, Ld. counsel for the appellant.

¶9

Mr. BhimSain Jain, Ld. counsel for the respondent.

¶10

This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.

¶11

Vide this misc. application the Ld. counsel for the appellant has prayed for transfer of Recovery Certificate no. 870/2019 pending before the RO, DRT Jaipur to RO of any other DRT.

¶12

Ld. counsel for the appellant has challenged the order on the ground that act of RO is arbitrary and not in accordance with law.

¶13

It is submitted that auction has already taken place and possession of the premises in question has to be taken by the Bank today only.

¶14

It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that only seven days’ notice has been given by the RO on 18.08.2022 whereas at least 15 days notice should have been given.

¶15

He further submits that since the RO is not acting in accordance with law, the present proceeding be transferred to some other RO.

¶16

Ld. counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that Ld. RO has passed an order dated 29.07.2022 in which he has held as follows:-

¶17

“CH Bank to hand over the possession of the auctioned property with the help of Ld. Adv. Shri Dinesh Garg who is hereby being appointed as Adv. Commissioner for the purpose, after giving 07 days clear notice to the CDs.

¶18

Perusal of the aboveorder, reveals that 07 days’ notice was to be given

¶19

before taking possession and this fact was in the knowledge of the appellant on 29.07.2022 itself.

¶20

-2-

¶21

Appellant, however, submits that 15 days’ notice ought to have been given as per CPC.

¶22

I have given my thoughts to the matter. The CPC does not apply to the proceedings before the DRT and same is clear from the Section 22 of the RDB Act.

¶23

Moreover, this Tribunal is of the opinion that if the appellant is aggrieved by the order of Ld. RO, he has a remedy to file an appeal before the Ld. PO, DRT as per Section 30 of RDB Act.The appellant has, however, not availed the said remedy as provided under Section 30 which runs as under:-

¶24

Section 30 in The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993

¶25

30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.

¶26

(2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).]

¶27

Section 30A of the said Act runs as under:-

¶28

Section 30A: Deposit of amount of debt due for filing appeal against orders of the Recovery Officer.

¶29

Where an appeal is preferred against any order of the Recovery Officer, under section 30, by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or financial institution or consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal.

¶30

Admittedly, appellant has not filed any appeal against the order of Ld. PO. He isonly seeking transfer of the proceeding from one RO to another. In view of the fact that a remedy is available to the applicant to file an appeal before the Ld.

¶31

-3-

¶32

Presiding Officer against the impugned order under Section 30 of the RDB Act,in these circumstances, no grounds are made out for transfer of the proceedings pending before Recovery Officer-I, DRT, Jaipur to any other Recovery Officer. The applicant may, however, avail the remedy of appeal as provided by the statute i.e. as per Section 30 of the RDB Act.

¶33

The transfer application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶34

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶35

-ap

M/S Sahdev Brothers v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sahdev Brothers v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Akanchi Gupta

Smt. Tanu Gupta versus Punjab National Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus H R Gupta and Sons

Catalyst trusteeship Ltd. & Anr. versus Reynold Shirting Ltd. & Ors.

Bank of Maharashtra versus SP Guide Publications Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. versus Ms Shiva Engeeneering Services and Ors.