Dismissed

1.M/s Rajpati Agro godowns Private Limited through Director. Mukesh Kumar v. Union Bank of India

DRAT12 Apr 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against a DRT order, holding that the appeal was barred by limitation and lacked merit since the underlying SARFAESI actions were pending before the High Court in a writ petition that granted liberty to approach the High Court for a fresh writ.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was rejected and the appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

1.M/s Rajpati Agro godowns Private Limited through Director… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

Appeal Dy. No. 335/2023 Date: 12.04.2023

¶2

M/s Rajpati Agro Godowns Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India Present: Shri Amit Shukla, counsel for the appellant,

¶3

The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the final order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the DRT, Patna in S.A. No. 83/2021., whereby the S.A. of the appellant has been dismissed. The report of the registrar dated 03.04.2023 shows that the Urgency application being I.A. No. 237/2023, delay condonation application being I.A. No. 238/2023 and exemption application being I.A. No. 239/2023 have been filed.

¶4

The record shows that the petitioner had approached before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna by filing the civil writ petition no. 19981 of 2021 for quashing the notice dated 05.07.2019 issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and notice dated 09.10.2019 issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with the direction to the Bank not to put the property on auction. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court, Patna vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2022 with the condition that if the appellant deposits Rs. 10.00 lacs within two weeks, he may approach the Bank with a proposal to fix equal monthly installment for repayment of the rest of the mutually agreed amount within six months and concerned bank will decide the same within two months. It was made open that if the appellant was aggrieved by the final decision taken by the bank, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Hon’ble High Court by way of separate petition, if so required or desired. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Patna, the DRT, Patna vide its judgment and order dated 21.04.2022 dismissed the S.A. on the ground that since the appellant had

¶5

challenged the SARFAESI actions before the Hon’ble High Court and the writ petition was decided, wherein opportunity has been given to the petitioner to approach the Hon’ble High Court by filing separate writ petition, if so desired and thus, the S.A. was dismissed, against which the present appeal has been filed without giving any reasonable ground in the application for condonation of delay of more than 11 months.

¶6

In view of the above, there is no good ground made out for interference of this court in the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Tribunal below. Hence, the appeal is liable to dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

¶7

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. No order as to costs.

¶8

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶9

Anupam

1.M/s Rajpati Agro godowns Private Limited through Director. Mukesh Kumar v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1.M/s Rajpati Agro godowns Private Limited through Director. Mukesh Kumar v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mrs Neerja Tiwari versus Allahabad Bank and 11 Ors.

Central Bank of India and Anr. versus M/ S Narmada Marketing and Anr.

Tyagi Associates versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Shri Ram Babu Gupta

Ilg Crown Leathers Private Ltd. versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Ashray Engicons (P) Ltd.