Allowed

Ms Ma Tara Stores v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT24 Nov 2022REGULAR APPEAL/65/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of challenge to Registrar's refusal to register SARFAESI Application due to procedural defects including incomplete Vakalatnama and verification affidavit. Court allowed appeal and permitted filing of fresh affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed. Liberty granted to file fresh affidavit. DRT directed to register SARFAESI Application (SA) and decide.

Ms Ma Tara Stores versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Service and Employment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

Appeal No. 65 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Appeal No. 65 of 2022

¶4

(Arising out of Chamber Appeal No. 02 of 2022 in DRT-III, Kolkata)

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

M/s. Ma Tara Stores, having its office at 78/1, Strand Road, P.S. Posta, Kolkata – 700 007;

¶7

Bishnu Kumar Manpuria of 202, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Barat Colony, Lake Town, North 24 Parganas, P.S. Lake Town, Kolkata – 700 089;

¶8

Manpuria Agro Products Private Limited, having its office at 25, Maharshi Debendra Road, P.S. Posta, Kolkata 700 007;

¶9

Manpuria Realtors Products Private Limited, having its office at 25, Maharshi Debendra Road, P.S. Posta, Kolkata 700 007.

¶10

… Appellants

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27, BKC C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), P.S. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 051;

¶13

2, The Authorised Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, APJ House, Block-C, 7^th floor, 15, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. … Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant …	Mr. Rajarshi Dutta with Mr. Sarbajit Mukherjee & Mr. Sandip Kumar Datta
None for Respondents …	Mr. Soumava Ghosh with Ms. Nupur Rathi

¶15

JUDGMENT : 24^th November, 2022

¶16

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶17

The instant appeal arises against an order dated 12^th July, 2022 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Kolkata in Chamber Appeal No. 02 of 2022 challenging the order dated 23^rd March, 2021 passed by Learned Registrar wherein Learned Registrar has pointed out the following three defects in the SARFAESI Application :

¶18

Vakalatnama not filed fully.

¶19

¶20

Appeal No. 65 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata

¶21

1. Paragraphs number not mentioned in all verification affidavit with no dates.

¶22

Applicant to give schedule of property.

¶23

The defects, pointed out by the Registry, having not been removed by the Appellants, Learned Registrar, vide order dated 8^th December, 2021, declined to register the SARFAESI Application.

¶24

2. Feeling aggrieved, Appellant filed an appeal before the Learned Presiding Officer; which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 12^th July, 2022 on the ground that Appellants did not make any prayer to rectify the defects.

¶25

3. Appellants, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, preferred the instant appeal.

¶26

4. Notices were issued to the Respondents who have put in their presence.

¶27

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

5. Present appeal is filed against the order declining registration of the SARFAESI Application on the ground of not removing the defects, as pointed out by the Registry of the Learned DRT-III, Kolkata.

¶29

As far as Issue No. 1, regarding Vakalatnama not filed fully, is concerned, certified copy is filed at page 554 of the paper book wherein the Vakalatnama is fully filled.

¶30

As far as Issue No. 2, regarding Paragraphs number not mentioned in all verification affidavit with no dates, the affidavit filed in support of the SARFAESI Application, appearing at page 50 of the paper book which was verified, as per verification clause, by one Bishnu Kumar Manpuria, being the Appellant No. 2 in the present appeal. Paragraph No. 49 was added after it was filed before the Learned Tribunal.

¶31

6. When a document is filed before the Tribunal or Court it becomes the record of the Tribunal or Court and no amendment, addition or alteration can be made without the leave of the Tribunal or

¶32

¶33

Appeal No. 65 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata Court. Hence, if any addition/correction was made in the verification clause, it is against the law which could not be permitted. However, the Appellant would be at liberty to file a fresh affidavit in accordance with law before the Learned DRT.

¶34

7. Further, as far as submission of schedule of the property is concerned, Learned Counsel submits that it was already filed along with the SARFAESI Application, which is appearing at pages 552 and 553 of the Paper Book.

¶35

8. In view of the observation made above, Appeal is liable to be allowed. Appellants would be at liberty to file fresh affidavit in support of the SARFAESI Application before the Learned DRT. Learned DRT would consider the affidavit filed by the Appellants in support of the SARFAESI Application in accordance with law.

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The appeal is allowed. Appellant would be at liberty to file fresh affidavit before Learned DRT. Learned DRT shall register the S.A. at its number and proceed to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶38

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

¶39

File be consigned to Record room.

¶40

Order dictated, signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶41

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶42

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶43

Dated: 24^th November, 2022 12/ac

Ms Ma Tara Stores v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ma Tara Stores v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

Smt N Deepa versus Union Bank of India

Indian Centre For Advancement Of Research Education Icare versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of Baroda and Ors. versus M/s Sunway Infrastructure Services Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Kbs Automotive Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.

Ms Choice Precitech India Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Nap Leathers Pvt. Ltd. versus Arcil