Remanded

Indian Bank v. Mrs. M. Nazneen & Anr.

DRAT14 Oct 2022REGULAR APPEAL/103/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against the DRT's allowance of a Securitisation Application was allowed. The Appellate Tribunal set aside its own impugned order and remanded the application to be decided on merits, after granting the appellant bank a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence of compliance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 29.08.2016 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal below to decide the Securitisation Application SA 51/2011 on merits after granting a

Indian Bank versus Mrs. M. Nazneen & Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

RA (SA) 103/2017

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 14^th of October, 2022

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

¶5

CHAIRPERSON

¶6

RA (SA) 103/2017

¶7

(SA No.51/2011 before DRT-I, Chennai)

¶8

Between

¶9

Authorised Officer

¶10

Indian Bank, Rep. by T.S. Raman Thousand Lights Branch

¶11

611, Anna Salai

¶12

Chennai – 600 035.

¶13

Authorised Officer

¶14

Indian Bank,

¶15

ARMB, Rep. by Shenbagavalli Ethiraj Salai Egmore Chennai – 600 008.

¶16

…… Appellants

¶17

¶18

Mrs. M. Nazneen

¶19

Old Door No. 3, Shop No. 8/GF/6, Rosy Towers, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶20

Mrs. K. Chithra

¶21

No. 371, 30^th Street, 6^th Sector, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 007.

¶22

…. Respondents

¶23

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. Jayesh Dolia and Mr. M.S. Shanmugasundaram Counsel for Respondent No.1 : M/s. Govind Chandrasekhar, Counsel for R2 : Mr.Ananda Gomathy

RA (SA) 103/2017

O R D E R

1. This Appeal is against the Orders of DRT-I, Chennai, dated 29.08.2016 in SA 51/2011.

¶28

2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-

¶29

First Respondent herein filed SA 51/2011 questioning the measures initiated by Authorised Officer of Appellant Bank against her, under SARFAESI Act, 2002, mainly questioning Sale Notice dated 10.01.2011, on the ground that, it was not affixed on conspicuous part of property, and Authorised Officer of Bank has not made publication as required under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short Rules).

¶30

Appellant Bank herein filed Counter disputing the said averments contending that Authorised Officer of Appellant Bank followed all the Rules and mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶31

¶32

RA (SA) 103/2017

¶33

During pendency of SA, property was sold and Auction

¶34

Purchaser is impleaded as Respondent No.3 to SA.

¶35

Tribunal below on a consideration of contentions and rival contentions, allowed Securitisation Application holding that Appellant Bank cannot simply contend and plead that mandatory provisions are complied with, and it is bound to place relevant material to show the due compliance, and as it has not produced any material, contentions of Applicant therein, i.e. 1^st Respondent herein, is accepted, and SA is allowed. Aggrieved by said Order, present Appeal is preferred.

¶36

Both parties filed Written Submissions and submitted

¶37

oral arguments reiterating the Written Submissions.

¶38

Main ground of challenge is that Tribunal below has not accorded opportunity to Appellant Bank herein, to produce relevant documents showing the compliance of provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made there under. It is submitted that, daughter of 1^st Respondent herein, filed SA 54/2011

¶39

¶40

RA (SA) 103/2017

¶41

claiming the very same property through gift made to her, and Appellant Bank raised objection as to filing of two Applications in respect of one property, and requested Learned Presiding Officer to decide the issue of maintainability of SA 54/2011, and arguments are advanced only on the point of maintainability, but to the surprise of Appellant Bank, Tribunal below, decided SA 51/2011 on merits, particularly, holding that Appellant Bank did not produce any document evidencing due compliance of Rules, 2002, and on that ground, set aside Sale Notice dated 10.01.2011, and Auction that took place on 18.02.2011. It is submitted, Appellant Bank was under the impression that, after deciding the issue of maintainability, they can produce necessary evidence and documents showing the compliance, but no such opportunity is given, therefore, matter may be remitted back, so that parties will have an opportunity to substantiate their respective contentions.

¶42

¶43

RA (SA) 103/2017

¶44

Advocate for Auction Purchaser has no objection for remanding the matter.

¶45

According to Respondent No.1, as Tribunal below has rightly decided correctness of the measures, there is no need to

¶46

send back the case, but I am not in agreement with the contentions of 1^st Respondent, since no opportunity is given to Appellant, when Appellant Bank contended that they will produce documents and evidence showing the compliance, they should be given an opportunity to substantiate their objections, so that matter can be decided on merits.

¶47

Admittedly, impugned Order is only for non-production of

¶48

documents and evidence showing the compliance, and when Appellant Bank complained that no opportunity was given, the same cannot be discarded. Further, Appellant has produced copies of proceedings sheet, and from a perusal of proceedings sheet dated 07.01.2015, 18.02.2015 and 18.03.2015, it is crystal clear that, Tribunal below was intended to decide the

¶49

¶50

RA (SA) 103/2017

¶51

issue of maintainability in filing SA 54/2011, and only on that

¶52

ground, adjournments are granted. As rightly pointed out by Learned Advocate for Appellant Bank, SA 51/2011 and SA 54/2011 are decided on the same date, while holding that Petitioner in SA 54/2011 has no locus standi, and

¶53

simultaneously decided SA 51/2011 also, holding that Appellant herein has not produced any documents or evidence showing due compliance. So, it is apparent that no opportunity was given to Appellant Bank herein, in SA 51/2011, and it was decided along with SA 54/2011, which was heard on maintainability.

¶54

Considering these aspects, without going into merits and

¶55

demerits of the case, I am of the view that, this is a fit case where matter can be send back to Tribunal below for a fresh consideration.

¶56

For the reasons stated above, Appeal RA (SA) 103/2017 is allowed, and impugned Order dated 29.08.2016, is set aside,

¶57

and the matter is remitted back to Tribunal below, which is

¶58

¶59

RA (SA) 103/2017

¶60

now having jurisdiction in view of new Notification, with a direction to decide Securitisation Application SA 51/2011, on merits, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both parties to produce their respective documents and evidence by granting reasonable time, and decide SA, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶61

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 14^th of October, 2022]

¶62

Sd/- [ Justice S. Ravi Kumar ] CHAIRPERSON

¶63

Indian Bank v. Mrs. M. Nazneen & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Mrs. M. Nazneen & Anr.

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Exertion Technology Private Ltd.

A.O.,Phoenix Arc Ltd. Ltd. Managing Director Mr S Balasundaram versus M/s Oyester Homes Chennai Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Dr S Venkatesh Babu versus City Union Bank Limited

Excel versus Union Bank of India

K Natarajan versus Union Bank of India

Mr E v Shiril versus South Indian Bank