Dismissed

Hdfc Bank v. Debashis Gouranga Charan Acharya alias Debasish Acharya

DRAT22 Sept 2023REGULAR APPEAL/163/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal filed by HDFC Bank against the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order allowing a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that no illegality existed as no consequential orders of dismissal were passed during the interim default, thus dismissing the bank's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Order dated 11/07/2018 passed by DRT Cuttack in O.A. No. 46 of 2018 is confirmed.

Hdfc Bank versus Debashis Gouranga Charan Acharya alias… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal No. 163 of 2018

¶3

(Arising out of OA No. 46 of 2018 in DRT Cuttack)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

The Authorised officer, HDFC Bank Limited A/62/1 Unit 8, P.O. & P.S.- Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, District Khurda, Pin-751012.

¶6

Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. Retail Loan Service Centre, Santiniketan Building, Jholasahi, District Cuttack, Pin-753001

¶7

…Appellants

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

Sri Debashis Gouranga Charan Acharya, son of Gouranga Acharya at Bisinagar, Arunoday Nagar, P.O. Madhupatna, P.S. Badambadi, DistCuttack.

¶10

The District Magistrate and Collector Cuttack, at Collectorate Campus, Ring Road, Post – Chandni Chowk, PS -Lal Bagh, Cuttack -753002

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cuttack at CB 9 Complex, Cantonment Road, Cuttack, Pin -753001

¶12

The Inspector -In-Charge, Badambadi, Cuttack at Badambadi Police Station, Link road, Badambadi Colony, Cuttack 753009

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Appellants Ms. Mekhala Kanji, Learned Advocate Counsel for the Respondent None

¶15

JUDGMENT : On 22^nd September, 2023

¶16

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶17

Instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 11^th July, 2018 passed by Learned DRT Cuttack in O.A. No. 46 of 2018.

¶18

¶19

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Respondents are not represented although they are served. 3. It appears that the Respondents are the borrower of the Appellant Bank. Appellant Bank initiated the SARFAESI action against the Respondents which was challenged by the Respondents/ SARFAESI Applicants by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the SARFAESI application. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act being MA No. 119 of 2018 was allowed by the Learned DRT Cuttack on 07.05.2018 and the delay was condoned subject to deposit of Rs. 2 lacs within two months. Rs. one lac was to be deposited by 07.06.2018 and another Rs. one lac was to be deposited by 06.07.2018. It was further observed that the amount of Rs. one lac was not deposited on or before 07.06.2018. MA No. 119 of 2018 was dismissed. Matter was listed on 08.06.2018. It appears that on 08.06.2018, no orders were passed. An amount of Rs. One lac was deposited by the SARFAESI Applicant on 30^th June, 2018. Thereafter, another MA No. 848 of 2018 was filed with the submission that the amount of Rs. 2 lacs have been deposited and there is a delay in payment of first instalment. MA No. 848 of 2018 was filed on 03.07.2018.

¶20

4. Learned DRT allowed the MA No. 848 of 2018 and recalled the order dated 07.05.2018. Further, a direction was issued to deposit Rs. one lac before 13.08.2018. It is submitted that this amount was deposited by the Appellants.

¶21

¶22

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that since the initial order dated 07.05.2018 was not complied in time and there was an order of dismissal of MA application in default of payment, hence, the MA stands dismissed for noncompliance of the orders when neither the SARFAESI Application nor MA application remain pending. Then there was no option for the DRT to entertain the MA No. 848 of 2018 and the impugned order is bad in law.

¶23

6. I have gone through the records. No doubt, on 07.05.2018 a conditional order was passed by the Learned DRT to the effect that the SARFAESI Applicant should deposit Rs. 2 lacs in two months. First instalment of Rs. one lac was to be deposited by 07.06.2018 and the second instalment was to be deposited by 06.07.2018. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of 07.06.2018, MA No. 119 of 2018 shall stand dismissed. It appears that thereafter an application being MA No. 848 of 2018 was filed on 03.07.2018 wherein it is stated that the amount of Rs. one lac was deposited on 30^th June, 2018. Certain grounds are taken regarding summer vacation and illness which was considered by the Learned DRT and the delay was condoned. And the impugned order was passed. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order although there is an order that in default of payment, application shall stand dismissed but no subsequent consequential orders were passed on 08.06.2018. Hence, the impugned

¶24

¶25

order cannot be said to be bad in law. Accordingly, Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Appeal is dismissed. Order dated 11^th July, 2018 passed by Learned DRT Cuttack in O.A. No. 46 of 2018 is confirmed. However, it is a very old matter. Learned DRT Cuttack is directed to decide the same expeditiously.

¶28

No order as to costs.

¶29

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶30

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶31

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶32

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22^nd day of September, 2023.

¶33

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶34

Dated: 22^nd September, 2023 21/tp

Hdfc Bank v. Debashis Gouranga Charan Acharya alias Debasish Acharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Debashis Gouranga Charan Acharya alias Debasish Acharya

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

Bangla Bijuli Power Echnologies Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Ms Kesava Educational Society versus State Bank Of India

Abul Hasan Rafique Ahmed versus Housing and Urban Development Corporation

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Tummidi Brothers Jewellery

M/s Shigan Export Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Canara Bank

Smt Cheruku Shobha versus Uco Bank