Appealed against DRT dismissal of securitization application under SARFAESI Act. Tribunal found no procedural infirmity in bank actions. This Appellate Tribunal held that though a case barring locus stood, it was not agitated before lower court; appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
Regular Appeal No. 11/2021
| M/s Ansari Enterprises ……..…………………….…………… |
……………………… | …………...Appellant |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| Allahabad Bank and Anr. …………………………..…………… Advocates who appeared |
……………………… in this case |
……….Respondents |
| For the appellant, | Shri Kushal Shri Raj Advocates, |
Kant along with Kumar Tiwari, |
| For the respondent-Bank, | Shri A. Advocate, |
K. Srivastava, |
JUDGMENT
Decided on: 21.09.2022
JUSTICE R. D. KHARE, CHAIRPERSON
1 of 5
not maintain the financial discipline, therefore, the account became non performing asset (NPA). The respondent-Bank issued a demand notice dated 02.05.2018 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for Rs. 17,83,246/-. Since the borrower did not pay any heed to repay the amount as demanded, therefore, the respondent-Bank initiated the recovery proceeding by issuing possession notice dated 09.08.2018 of the said Act. The said notice was affixed on the outer door of the property of the borrower, guarantor and mortgagor and was published in two newspapers on 15.08.2018. Thereafter, the Bank issued sale notice dated 15.11.2018 and published in newspapers on 18.11.2018 scheduling the auction for 12.12.2018 and the property was sold for a sum of Rs. 24.00 lacs. The sale was confirmed by the respondent-Bank vide confirmation letter dated 12.12.2018 in favour of the respondent no. 2 being highest bidder and sale certificate dated 25.02.2020 was also issued in his favour.
2 of 5
the actions initiated by the respondent-Bank. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the applicant-Firm.
3 of 5
and has argued that the grounds taken by the appellant before the Tribunal below were regarding various procedural irregularities, which have been committed by the Bank, but the same were duly considered by the Tribunal below and the Tribunal below finally came to the conclusion that the respondent-Bank has committed no infirmity in initiating the proceedings against the secured asset in question and the Tribunal below has further held that the S.A. was not filed by the mortgagor/owner of the property in question relying upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4379/2016-Axis Bank Vs. SBS Organic Pvt. Ltd. and another . Since all the contentions raised by the appellant have been considered and decided, therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal below that the appellant has no locus to challenge the validity and legality of the proceedings initiated by the Bank has no significance. As such the impugned order passed by the Tribunal below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, hence the appeal may be dismissed with heavy cost.
prescribed in the Act and Rules and the Tribunal below has passed the order accordingly. The point of locus was not agitated before the Tribunal below. However, the Tribunal below placing its reliance upon law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the appellant has no locus. Since the grievance as raised by the appellant was fully considered and there was no pleading with regard to the locus, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality in the eye of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
CHAIRPERSON
VN Giri
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal is maintainable given the lack of specific plea regarding locus standi before the lower Tribunal.
Whether the impugned order of the DRT suffers from any irregularity or illegality despite being based on a judgment that the appellant had no locus.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Civil Appeal No. 4379/2016-Axis Bank Vs. SBS Organic Pvt. Ltd. and anotherRelied on¶17
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Ansari Enterprises
Allahabad Bank
R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
