Disposed

Ms Saraswati Corrugators v. Canara Bank

DRAT11 Jan 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal concerning a banking dispute and pending auction proceedings, the bench directed the Respondent Bank to supply a complete account statement. If the appellant submits a settlement proposal within 15 days, the Bank must consider it under RBI guidelines. The appeal was disposed of with directions to the lower Tribunal to decide the related settlement application expeditio

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondent Bank to supply the complete statement of account within one month and consider a settlement proposal if submitted within 15 days; direction to the Tribunal to dispose of th

Ms Saraswati Corrugators versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 1233/2021 Date: 11.01.2023

¶2

Ms. Saraswati Corrugators Vs. Canara Bank

¶3

Present: Shri Prabhav Srivastava, counsel for the appellant, Shri Ankur Gupta, counsel for the respondent-Bank,

¶4

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited Rs. 17.00 lacs pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Tribunal below and prior to it, the appellant had also deposited Rs. 25.47 lacs with the respondent-Bank on different dates i.e. from 20.04.2022 to 23.09.2022. As such the appellant has deposited 40% of the total amount due with the respondent-Bank after declaration of the loan account as NPA. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to a letter dated 05.12.2022 addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank, which is at page no. 188 (Annexure No. 14) of the paper book. Learned counsel further submits that the loan account was declared as NPA in contravention of the guidelines of the RBI. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the Bank has not given any statement of the account after adjusting the amount, which had already been deposited with the Bank so that the appellant could not submit the settlement proposal with the Bank.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the appellant has deposited Rs. 17 lakhs in pursuance of the order dated 23.09.2022 of the Tribunal below and according to the said order, the appellant had to submit the OTS proposal with the respondent-Bank, but he did not do so, instead kept on lingering the proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that the complete statement of account has already been given to the appellant, copy of which has been

¶7

filed with the objection of the Bank, which is at page No. 164 (annexure 12) of the memo of appeal.

¶8

In the last, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Bank has not specified, as to what charges have been levied upon the appellant, as such the complete statement of the account has not been given. Hence, the appellant could not submit the settlement proposal with the Bank.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that if the appellant is aggrieved, he may move an appropriate application before the Respondent-Bank for information, which he requires to move the proposal for settlement of the remaining loan amount.

¶10

However, the respondent-Bank is directed to supply the complete statement of account to the appellant within a period of one month from today. If the appellant submits a proposal for settlement of the remaining outstanding amount within 15 days thereafter, the Bank shall consider the same in accordance with the rules/guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the interregnum, the interest of the appellant may be protected, as the sale which was published earlier could not be materialized, but the respondent-Bank has again published the second sale notice and they are in hurry to auction the property in question.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that no fresh sale notice has been issued as on date and no proceedings have been drawn for auction of the property in

¶13

question, therefore, the interim protection is not required at this stage.

¶14

In view of the above, the present appeal is finally disposed of with direction upon the Tribunal below to consider and decide the S.A. No. 696/2022 filed by the appellant in accordance with law most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶15

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶16

VN Giri

Ms Saraswati Corrugators v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Saraswati Corrugators v. Canara Bank

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

Shishir Shukla versus State Bank of India and 5 Ors.

Mohd Mansoor Alam and Anr. versus Bank of India

M/ S Ramnandi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus State Bank of India

Mahesh mihani versus Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

Vishun Lal versus Vijaya Bank

Shri Ram Gopal Maheshwari versus Canara Bank