Allowed

Rbl Bank Limited v. Tech Hub Space Solution

DRAT13 Apr 2023REGULAR APPEAL/19/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the bank against an interim stay order. The court remanded the matter to the lower Debt Recovery Tribunal to first decide the maintainability of the Special Appeal before addressing the interim application.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to decide the issue of maintainability within two months after giving opportunity of hearing.

Rbl Bank Limited versus Tech Hub Space Solution — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Appeal No. 19 of 2023

¶4

(Arising out of I.A. No. 02 of 2023 in S.A. 01 of 2023 – DRT-2, Hyderabad)

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶6

13.04.2023

¶7

M/s. RBL Bank Ltd. having its zonal office at Gr. Floor, Hansalaya Building, Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place, New delhi – 110001. and Branch Office at Sy.No. 88 of Krishna Sapphire, Gr. Floor, MSR Block, Hi Tech City Mail Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad- 500081.

¶8

… Appellant Vs. 1. M/s. Tech Hub 36 Space Solutions, having its registered office at 3^rd and 4^th floor, Sun Towers, H. No. 8-2293/82/A/1097, Plot No. 1097 Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500033. 2. Sri M. Nageswara Rao, residing at H.No.10-02-28, Plot No. 102, Flat No. 501 & 502, Akshat Residency, West Maredpally, Secun-derabad – 500026. 3. Smt. M. Venkata Ramana, residing at H.No.10-02-28, Plot No. 102, Flat No. 501 & 502, Akshat Residency, West Maredpally, Secun-derabad – 500026. ….. Respondents

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. Nimes Mishra, Learned Counsel with Mr. Rajeev Maity, Learned Counsel

¶10

For Respondent: Mr. G. Srinivas, Learned Counsel

¶11

¶12

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶13

Instant appeal has arisen against the judgement and order dated 03.01.2023 passed by learned DRT-2, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 02 of 2023 arising out of S.A. No. 01 of 2023 [M/s. Tech Hub36 Space Solutions Vs. RBL Bank & Ors.] wherein an interim order was passed by learned DRT. Feeling aggrieved appellant has preferred the appeal.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records.

¶15

Without entering into the merit of the order, learned counsel for the appellant bank submits that S.A. filed by respondent no.1 is not legally maintainable. This issue was raised by the appellant before the DRT, but no finding is recorded on the issue of maintainability rather an interim protection was granted in favour of respondent no.1. Hence, impugned order is bad in law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned DRT has granted interim protection after recording reasons in accordance with law. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

I have gone through the records and find that preliminary issue of maintainability of the S.A. was raised by the appellant before the learned DRT. At the time of hearing of the interim application when the issue of maintainability was raised by the appellant, it was incumbent upon learned

¶18

¶19

DRT to record its finding about the maintainability in accordance with the provision of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Without recording finding on the maintainability of the S.A. interim protection could not be granted. But in the present matter learned DRT has not recorded any finding on the issue of maintainability. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the matter should remanded back to learned DRT to decide the issue of maintainability and other connected issues after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously. Accordingly, appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Appeal is allowed. Matter is remanded back to learned DRT to decide the issue of maintainability first before proceeding to decide interim application for interim protection filed by the S.A. applicant after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is expected that learned DRT should dispose of the issue of maintainability within a period of two months from the date of receiving copy of the order. No order as to costs.

¶22

File be consigned to record room.

¶23

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶24

¶25

Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the

¶26

Tribunal’s website.

¶27

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13^th day of April, 2023.

¶28

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶29

Dated : 13.04.2023 15/pkb

Rbl Bank Limited v. Tech Hub Space Solution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rbl Bank Limited v. Tech Hub Space Solution

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

Sri Tapas Paul versus Indian Bank

Anil Kumar Gupta versus Union Bank of India

Anil Kumar Gupta versus Balaka Bajpeyi and Ors.

Kesavarapu Shanmukeswara Rao versus Union Bank of India

Geetiranjan Mohanty versus Allahabad Bank

Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and Anr. versus Idbi Bank