The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal listed the appeal concerning the nature of a notice dated 12.04.2016. The court noted it was heard, record perused, and no further instruction was available from the appellant. The appeal was listed for future hearing.
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 78 of 2019)
(Arising out of S.A. 250 of 2016 in DRT- Visakhapatnam)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
23.08.2022
Union Bank of India
… Appellant -Vs-
Sonovision Entp.
… Respondents
Mr. S. Pal Chowdhury, learned counsel for the Appellant. Mr. N. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the respondent.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent and perused records.
Present appeal is preferred again the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the DRT. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that notice dated 12.04.2016 is not a possession notice issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2022. The impugned order passed by DRT and its finding is based upon the notice dated 12.04.2016. Learned counsel for the appellant shall seek instruction from the bank as to whether they are intending to proceed further against the respondent to dispossess them from the schedule property.
List the appeal on 21.09.2022 for hearing.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 23rd August, 2022 14/pkb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether notice dated 12.04.2016 is a possession notice issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2022.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union Bank of India
Sonovision Entp.
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
