Remanded

Punjab National Bank v. Anil Chandran

DRAT13 Jul 2023IA/479/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges an order granting ad-interim stay on SARFAESI measures by DR-T-II Mumbai. The Tribunal set aside the order for not hearing the respondent bank and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after it files a reply.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to DR-T-II Mumbai for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to the respondent bank to file a reply and be heard.

Punjab National Bank versus Anil Chandran — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 124/2022

¶2

Between

¶3

Punjab National Bank … Appellant/s

V/s.

Anil Chandran

…Respondent/s

Mr O.A. Das, advocate for the Appellant Bank. An Advocate for the Respondent is present.

¶8

The Appellant is in appeal challenging the order dated 10.08.2022 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1884 of 2022 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No.241 of 2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (D.R.T), wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer had granted an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause 2(a) of the application restraining the Respondent Bank from proceeding with the Sarfaesi measures. Prima facie, the Sarfaesi measures were found to be defective. The Ld. Presiding Officer has also expressed his apprehension regarding the Sarfaesi measures being hit by the embargo under Sec. 31(j) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short). The Appellant is aggrieved, and in appeal.

¶9

The main objection of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant is that no opportunity was granted to file a reply in the

¶10

¶11

application and that the Respondent was not heard. From the application, it is seen that the Respondent was informed by way of an email which was sent on the date of the order. However, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicant in the S.A. would state that the notice was given two days prior to that. Even if it is two days prior, the Bank should have been given sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations made in the application and the I.A. should have been posted for hearing after giving an opportunity to the Respondent to file a reply. Instead, the I.A. has been disposed of by the impugned order, which does not appear to be appropriate. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order in I.A. No. 1884 of 2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Debt Recovery Tribunal No. II, Mumbai (D.R.T.) for fresh consideration of the I.A. after giving an opportunity to the Respondent to file a reply and be heard.

¶12

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank undertakes that no coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act will be taken without serving at least two weeks prior notice to the Applicant.

¶13

mks-23

¶14

Sd/Chairperson

¶15

Punjab National Bank v. Anil Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Anil Chandran

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

Similar cases

M/S Abhinav Furniture versus Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd.

M/S. Raj Radhe Finance Ltd. versus M/s. Shrinathji Spintex P. Ltd. & Ors.

Shri Kiran S/O Baburao Kulthe versus State Bank of India and Anr.

Amresh Suresh Jaiswal versus Bank of Baroda

M/S. Telstar Enterprise and Ors. versus Punjab National Bank

Mr. Lakhpati Arora versus India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd.