Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sai Ganapath Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT13 Sept 2023MISC APPEAL/17/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an application by the State Bank of India seeking transfer of a securitization pending before DRT-II, Bengaluru, to DRT-I, Bengaluru, due to a prior legal opinion given by the Presiding Officer in her capacity as a Panel Advocate of the bank.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Securities Application No. 865/2023 from DRT-II, Bengaluru to DRT-I, Bengaluru.

State Bank of India versus Sai Ganapath Hotel Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

MA (SA) 17/2023 (T)

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 13^th of September, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA (SA) 17/2023 (T)

¶6

[SA Dy. 865/2023 on the file of DRT-II, Bengaluru]

¶7

Between

¶8

State Bank of India, SAM Branch, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, 2^nd Floor, Office Complex Building, SBI LHO Compound, No. 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

AND

¶11

M/s. Sai Ganapath Hotel Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director Shri A.C. Thyagaraju, No. 21/16, Residency Road, Nazarabad, Mohalla and Mysore – 570 002.

¶12

…..Respondent

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. B. Dhanraj Counsel for Respondent : M/s. R. Ashok Kumar

¶14

MA (SA) 17/2023 (T)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Application is filed seeking transfer of SARFAESI Application Dy. No. 865/2023 from DRT-II, Bengaluru to DRT-I, Chennai or to any other DRT.

¶17

Brief facts leading to this Application are as follows:-

¶18

According to Applicant, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Bengaluru, was a Panel Advocate of erstwhile State Bank of Mysore, now merged with Applicant State Bank of India. According to Applicant, title scrutiny report in respect of property in dispute belonging to Respondent, was given by Learned Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Bengaluru, while she was a Panel Advocate of State Bank of Mysore, through opinion dated 09.10.2010. According to Applicant, as the same property is involved in the Securitisation Application, there may be discrimination in favour of Respondent Borrower, and to avoid the same, the Securitisation Application has to be transferred.

¶19

MA (SA) 17/2023 (T)

¶20

Respondent filed objection to Application contending that the Application is not maintainable, and it amounts to questioning the independence of judiciary. It is further contended that Applicant made irresponsible allegations against Learned Presiding Officer, and it amounts to interfering with functioning of Tribunal, therefore, the Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

Advocate for Applicant submitted that as Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Bengaluru, as a Panel Advocate, gave legal opinion in respect of the same property, she has to go by the same opinion, and to avoid any kind of embarrassment, Application may be transferred to any other DRT, in the interest of justice.

¶23

On the other hand, Advocate for Respondent submitted, though, the grounds urged for transfer are not tenable as per the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court,

¶24

MA (SA) 17/2023 (T)

¶25

since the matter is being delayed, Respondent has no objection for transfer, but, it may not be to DRT-I, Chennai, and as there is another DRT at Bengaluru, it may be transferred to DRT-I, Bengaluru, for disposal of the same, in accordance with law.

¶26

I have perused material papers with reference to the submissions of both sides.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the property, for which, a legal opinion is given by Learned Presiding Officer, is the same property involved in the Securitisation Application. Without going into the contentions and rival contentions of both parties, to avoid embarrassment even to Learned Presiding Officer, I am of the view that, it is better to transfer the said Securitisation Application to any other DRT. Though, Applicant requested for transfer of said Application to DRT-I, Chennai, as there is DRT-I, Bengaluru, same can be transferred to DRT-I, Bengaluru, so that parties may not suffer inconvenience.

¶28

MA (SA) 17/2023 (T)

¶29

For the above reasons, SA (Dy.) No.865/2023, which is registered as SA 96/2023 is withdrawn from DRT-II, Bengaluru and transferred to DRT-I, Bengaluru, for disposal on merits, in accordance with law.

¶30

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Bengaluru, shall decide said Securitisation Application after giving opportunity to both parties, as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any of the allegations and counter allegations made in the Transfer Petition, and both parties shall co-operate with DRT-I, Bengaluru.

¶31

In the result : Appeal MA (SA) 17/2023 (T) is allowed. No order as to costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶32

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 13^th of September, 2023]

¶33

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON

State Bank of India v. Sai Ganapath Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sai Ganapath Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

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

Moses versus State Bank of India

Ms Vimalkumar Textiles versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Ms Ipac Paper Boards India Private Limited Rep by its Director Vikram Balaraman versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

N Pon Nixson versus Indian Over Seas Bank

Stata Bank Of India versus Ms Peekay mediquip Ltd.

M/s Dlf Home Developers Ltd. versus Icici Bank Limited