Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sailesh Agarwal

DRAT28 Jun 2022REGULAR APPEAL/7/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against a misc. application order passed by the DRT, Siliguri, setting aside a blanket direction that required the respondent bank to inform the applicant 2 weeks in advance of any steps taken.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17th November, 2020 directing the respondent bank to intimate about steps taken two weeks in advance is set aside.

State Bank of India versus Sailesh Agarwal — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 07 of 2022)

¶3

(Arising out of M.A. Dy. No.162 of 2020 in DRT,

¶4

Siliguri)

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

28.6.2022 State Bank of India … Appellant -VsSailesh Agarwal … Respondent Mr. Sailesh Mishra with Mr. Sarvesh Ch. Srivastava, Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra with Mr. Abhishek Acharya and Mr. Abhishek Dey, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶9

The impugned order dated 17^th November, 2020 was passed by Learned DRT, Siliguri in M.A. Diary No. 162 of 2020 in M.A.-Dy. No. 145 of 2020, arising out of S.A. 60 of 2017, whereby direction was issued to the effect that “The respondent bank shall intimate about any steps taken by the respondent bank to the applicant 2 weeks in advance.”

¶10

Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that such type of blanket direction issued by the Learned DRT is against the statute.

¶11

Learned Counsel for Respondent places reliance upon Section 19 Sub-Section 25 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and Rule 18 of the DRT Procedure, 1993.

¶12

As far as direction is concerned, the Sarfaesi Application No. 61 of 2017 was filed by the Respondent herein before the Learned DRT Siliguri on 3^rd October, 2017 on the ground that the Bank had stated that they would not proceed with the matter on the basis of the order

¶13

¶14

passed by the District Magistrate dated 27^th June, 2017. However, liberty was given to the Bank to proceed in accordance with law. Thereafter, Sarfaesi Application was also dismissed. The impugned order was passed in a Misc. Application. Such type of a blanket order or direction could not be issued by the Learned DRT that too when no dispute or matter was pending. In such circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The appeal, being Appeal No. 06 of 2022, is allowed. The impugned order dated 17^th November, 2020 was passed by Learned DRT, Siliguri in M.A. Diary No. 162 of 2020 in M.A.-Dy. No. 145 of 2020, arising out of S.A. 60 of 2017 to the effect that “The respondent bank shall intimate about any steps taken by the respondent bank to the applicant 2 weeks in advance.” is hereby set aside. This, however, relates to only to the Misc. Application wherein the order was passed.

¶17

File be consigned to Record room.

¶18

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

¶19

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶20

Dated: 28^th June, 2022 17/ac

State Bank of India v. Sailesh Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sailesh Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shri Joyti Education And Management Trust World

State Bank of India versus M/s Sri Srinivasa Rice and Flour Mills and Ors.

Cygnus Investment Finance Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

M/S Mehek Enterprises versus Bank of Baroda

Andhra Bank versus Ms Nacstone Marketing

Asomi versus Axis Bank Ltd.