International Leather Goods v. Canara Bank And 2 Ors.

Appeal Dy. No. 269/2022 Date: 10.07.2023

International Leather Goods Vs. Canara Bank

Present: Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the appellant, Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the respondent no. 1- Bank,

Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the respondent no. 2-Borrower, Shri S. K. Gupta, counsel for the respondent no. 3-Auction Purchaser,

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellantFirm is a third party, which was doing job work in the premises in question and its goods and plant and machinery as well as the other goods were never mortgaged with the Bank, which are sought to be auctioned as secured assets. The learned counsel has relied upon a hypothecation agreement dated 02.07.2011 executed and signed by the respondent no. 2 and has referred to page no. 49 & 50 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank to show that no goods are shown to be hypothecated as both the pages are blank. The learned counsel has further referred to annexure no. 6 of the memo of appeal (at page no. 973), which is a master data of the company and has argued that if the goods were hypothecated, the same would have been reflected in the official website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, but it is not reflected there, which also authenticates that the goods were never hypothecated with the Bank. The learned counsel has also argued that the appellant has produced the party’s receipts and other documents to show that the goods belonging to the appellant are reflected in the Commissioner’s report, which is on record. It is thus contended that until the security interest was created or registered in the information utility or any charge was registered in the Securitization Asset

Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, such goods can not be auctioned or sold by the Bank as secured assets.