Dismissed

Sonar Bangla and Ors. v. Axis Bank Ltd.

DRAT7 Jun 2022REGULAR APPEAL/13/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DrAT dismissed the appeal by the appellants who challenged the injunction order passed by the DRT. The Tribunal held that the order directing a Special Officer to prepare an asset inventory did not authorize taking possession or running the business. The appeal was found devoid of merit as the procedural requirements were met.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sonar Bangla and Ors. versus Axis Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 13 of 2021) (Arising out of O.A. 33 of 2020 in (Order dt 02.09.2020) in DRT-3,Kolkata)

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

07.6.2022 Sona Bangla & Others … Appellants -VsAxis Bank Limited, … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Gaurav Singh with Mr. Sital Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶6

Mr. Rajeev Maity and Ms. Kuheli Dev, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 2^nd of September, 2020 passed by Learned DRT-3, Kolkata in O.A. 33 of 2020, whereby the Learned DRT has issued an injunction order restraining the Appellants from disposing of and/or transferring the property descried at the Schedule at page 26 of the O.A. Further the Learned Tribunal below directed the Appellants to disclose their moveable and immoveable assets. Mr. Soubhagya Sen, Bank Manager, was appointed as Special Officer who was directed to prepare inventory of asset mentioned in Schedule at page 25 of the O.A.

¶9

Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Learned Tribunal below has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 19 Sub Section 3(A) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Further, compliance of Rule 11 of the Debts

¶11

¶12

Recovery Procedure Rules, 1993 was not followed. As far as injunction is concerned, Learned Counsel did not press that part of the appeal.

¶13

Rule 11 of the Debts Recovery Procedure Rules, 1993 provides as under :

¶14

“11. Endorsing copy of application to the Respondent – A copy of the application and paper book shall be served on each of the respondents as soon as they are filed, by registered post.”

¶15

In the Memo of Appeal in para 5.2 it is specifically stated that copies of the postal receipt and envelope containing order dated 2^nd September, 2020, summons and Original Application, being O.A. 33 of 2020, sent through speed post on 14^th October, 2020, duly received by the Appellants on 21^st October, 2020 annexed as Annexure B pages 5 and 6 of Volume-II of the Memo of Appeal. Hence there is compliance of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Debts Recovery Procedure Rules, 1993.

¶16

Learned Counsel places reliance upon an order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in C.O. 377 of 2020 (Visa Steel Limited -vs- Canara Bank). Since copies have been served upon Appellants and Rule 11 has been complied with, the judgment relied upon is of no help to the Appellants.

¶17

Learned Counsel further places Section 19 (3A) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 wherein it was required that every application filed under sub Section (3A) of Section 19 for recovery of debt, shall –

¶18

“ (a) State particulars of the debt secured by security

¶19

interest over properties or assets belonging to any of the

¶20

defendants and the estimated value of each securities;

¶21

(b) if the estimated value of securities is not sufficient to satisfy the debt claimed, state particulars of any other properties or assets owned by any of the defendants, if any; and

¶22

¶23

(c) if the estimated value of such other assets is not sufficient to recover the debt, seek an order directing the defendant to disclose to the Tribunal particulars of other properties or assets owned by the defendants.”

¶24

Reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the matter of State Bank of India -vs- Jayshree Ceramics Private Limited & Others reported in AIR 1987 Cal 194. This judgment is entirely on a different footing. In the present case, there is no direction to the Receiver to take possession or run the business rather there was direction for preparing an inventory of assets only. Preparation of inventory of assets does not mean that the Authorised Officer or the Special Officer of the Tribunal was given any right to run the business or take possession of the property in question; rather, he was directed simply to prepare an inventory of the assets mentioned in the Schedule. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶25

The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal, being Appeal No. 13 of 2021, is dismissed.

¶28

There will be no order as to costs.

¶29

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶30

File be consigned to Record room.