Dipak Kumar Banik and Anr. v. City Union Bank Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
On 30 March 2023, an issue regarding non-impleadment of the borrower and auction purchaser in a SARFAESI appeal was observed. The Tribunal noted the borrower is a necessary party. As sale has not been conducted, it listed the case for hearing on the application for impleadment of the borrower.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Diary No. 391 of 2022
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
| 13.04.2023 | Dipak Kumar Banik & Anoth … Appe -Vs- City Union Bank Limited ... Respo |
er llants ndent |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Prasenjit Pal Mr. Suddhasattwa Bhattach Learned Counsel for Appellants |
with aryya, the |
|
| Mr. Anirban Pramanik |
with | |
| Mr. Punorbasu Nath |
and | |
| Ms. Ahana Rakshit, Le |
arned | |
| Counsel for Respondent |
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On 30th March, 2023 it was observed that there is an issue regarding non-impleadment of the borrower as well as the auction purchaser.
As far as borrower is concerned, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that as he is opposite party in the SARFAESI Application, he was not impleaded as Respondent in this appeal. Learned Counsel further submits that sale has not yet been conducted.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the borrower is a necessary party to be impleaded in the appeal.
Whether impleadment of the auction purchaser is required at this stage.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Dipak Kumar Banik & Anoth
- respondent
City Union Bank Limited
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
10 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court