Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Taraknath Das

DRAT21 Sept 2022REGULAR APPEAL/73/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for impleadment of Ashok Kumar Agarwal as an intervenor/respondent in an appeal arising from a debt recovery matter. The Court directed the appellant to implead the intervenor to allow a proper opportunity of hearing regarding interest in the auction property.

What did the court decide?

Application for impleadment of Ashok Kumar Agarwal allowed. Appellant directed to implead intervenor as Respondent. Intervenor to file opposition within three weeks.

Bank of Baroda versus Taraknath Das — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 73 of 2022)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 37 of 2018 in DRT, Cuttack)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

21.09.2022 Bank of Baroda & Others … Appellants -VsTarak Nath Das & Another … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Appellants/ Bank of Baroda

¶7

Ms. Aparna Das, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1

¶8

Mr. A. K. Dhandhania with Mr. Soumo Mukherjee and Mr. Rahul Poddar, Learned Counsel for the Intervenor/Respondent No. 2

¶9

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶10

An order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court at Orissa passed WPC 9752 of 2020 dated 24^th August, 2022 is submitted by the Appellant wherein the writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.

¶11

Application, being I.A. 299 of 2022, has been filed by one Ashok Kumar Agarwal for impleading him as a party on the ground that he is an interested party over the bid in the auction conducted by the Bank. His bid could not be considered in e-auction process due to technical reasons. Pursuant to the order of the DRT, Cuttack, he offered an amount of Rs.4.00 crore, which is more than the final bid amount. This amount is deposited by the Applicant before Learned DRT, Cuttack. Since the Applicant is a prospective buyer from the stage of e-auction and the offer is much more than the Appellant he should be impleaded as a proper party in the appeal.

¶12

¶13

Appellant filed objection and stated that application is not legally maintainable. It is moved with the purpose to delay the proceedings. Sale has been completed and Sale Certificate has been issued in favour of the Appellant. No fact is suppressed by the Appellant in the appeal. Accordingly, the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Bank has also filed an objection opposing impleadment of the internevor.

¶15

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

¶16

Learned Counsel Applicant submits that Applicant is a proper party as he had deposited the amount of Rs.2.00 crore. It is further submitted that Learned DRT had issued a direction that if the Appellant deposits Rs.2.00 crore, then Bank and auction purchaser shall take steps to register the property in favour of Ashok Kumar Agarwal. It is submitted that it shows that the Applicant is proper party in the proceedings so far his interest is involved in the proceedings.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the intention of the Applicant is just to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that it is prerogative of the Appellant as against whom he is seeking relief. Further, the SARFAESI Applicant wants to redeem the property under the garb of alleged intervenor by allegedly taking a stand that the intervenor has an interest in the disputed property..

¶18

As far as intervenor is concerned, in the impugned order Learned DRT has specifically ordered that:

¶19

“ 14. Under these circumstances and as stated supra, in order to given an opportunity to the applicant to discharge the loan liability, granted one month time to applicant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.2 crores before the respondent bank and the applicant is directed to take steps to deposit Rs.2 crores and the respondent bank and auction purchaser are directed to take steps to register the property in favour of Mr. Ashok Kumar Agarwal or in favour of applicant after deposit of Rs.2 crores within 1 month. In case applicant failed to pay Rs.2 crores, the auction purchaser is at liberty to deal with the property which is purchased through auction after one month from the date of this order. The applicant deposits

¶20

¶21

Rs.2 crore within one month the respondent bank is directed to return the amount of Rs.3,35,31,000/- with fixed deposit rate of interest from the date of deposit till payment is made and all the expenses for registering the sale deed and further costs are directed to debit from the account of the applicant and pay the same to the auction purchaser after one month from the date of this order.”

¶22

It shows that even Learned DRT has taken into account the fact of depositing the amount by the intervenor, Ashok Kumar Agarwal, hence he is a proper party and should be given an opportunity of hearing keeping in view the principles of natural justice.

¶23

Accordingly, I.A. 299 of 2022 is allowed.

¶24

Appellant is directed to implead the intervenor as a Respondent. Intervenor should file opposition in appeal within period of three weeks with advance copy to the Appellant as well as Bank; who may file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

¶25

List on 21^st December, 2022 for hearing of the appeal along with Appeal No. 26 of 2020.

¶26

Copy of paper book be provided to intervenor within a week.

¶27

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶28

Dated: 21^st September, 2022 01/ac

Bank of Baroda v. Taraknath Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Taraknath Das

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

Bank of Baroda versus Maa Ganga Modern Husking Rice Mill Private Limited

Marudhar Tracon P Ltd. versus India Sme Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Arcot Rajilaxmi versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Indian Centre For Advancement Of Research And Educacation Icare And Ors.

Andhra Bank versus Sri Pydi Ramkumar

Sudip Mallick versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.