The Tribunal dismissed the Bank's appeal as infructuous. The underlying suit was pending, and the order directing delivery of possession had already been complied with.
The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
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.
Appeal No. 169 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No.169 of 2018)
(Arising out of S.A. 46 of 2017 in DRT, Cuttack)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
Bank of Baroda, Assets Recovery Management Branch Cuttack, Plot No. CM-2B, 1st Floor, Sector-7, Near Market Nagar Police Station CDA, Cuttack – 753 014, Odisha.
… Appellant
-Versus-
… Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant … Mr. Nemani Srinivas Counsel for Respondents … None
JUDGMENT : 27th April, 2022
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. None is present for the Respondents.
In brief, the controversy revolves round the point as to whether the appeal can be heard on merits or not.
By the impugned order, dated 25th November, 2017, passed in M.A. 1092 of 2017 arising out of S.A. 46 of 2017, Learned DRT, Cuttack directed the Appellant Bank to deliver possession of the property to the Applicants in the S.A. and also stayed the auction which was scheduled to be held on 1st December, 2017.
During the course of hearing, Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, states that although, in compliance of the order of the Learned DRT, Cuttack, dated 25th November, 2017, Bank has delivered possession of the property to the Applicants of the S.A.,
2
Appeal No. 169 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata the amount of Rs.40,00 lac, deposited by the Applicants in the form of Demand Draft, has yet not been appropriated by the Appellant Bank.
I have gone through the impugned order. It would be appropriate to mention here that the SARFAESI application is still pending for disposal before the Learned DRT, Cuttack. Learned DRT do issue a direction for re-delivery of possession of the property which has already been complied with by the Appellant Bank.
Now, so far as the present appeal is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the S.A. is still pending for disposal and the order, impugned, has already been complied with, this appeal becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed; being infructuous.
O R D E R E D
The appeal, being Appeal No. 169 of 2018, is dismissed as infructuous.
Next date is fixed on the 11th of July, 2022 for hearing of the S.A. It is expected that the Learned DRT will dispose of the S.A. expeditiously.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
File be consigned to Record room.
Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 27th April, 2022 ac
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present appeal against the DRT order directing delivery of possession can be heard on merits when the underlying suit is still pending and the possession has already been delivered.
Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed as being infructuous.
Bank of Baroda
Krishna Agarwal
Dinesh Agarwal
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
