Allowed

Eddlelwiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. M/S Arti Roadways Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT1 May 2023REGULAR APPEAL/237/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged a DR-T order confirming a DM order compelling bank/ARCO's authorised officer to take possession with police. The creditor officer's lack of subordination to the DM was the core issue.

What did the court decide?

Stay on handover of possession granted for 60 days to allow the Appellant to approach the District Magistrate again under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Eddlelwiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus M/S Arti… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Appeal No. 237/2016

¶3

Between

¶4

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s. M/s. Arti Roadway Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr Rohit Gupta along with Mr D.U. Chaurasia, i/b M/s. M.K. Ambalal & Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

-: Order dated: 01/05/2023:-

¶7

The Appellant Asset Reconstruction Company is impugning the order passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) on 19.09.2016 allowing S.A. No. 18 of 2014 filed by the borrowers. The main objection raised in the application challenging the Sarfaesi measures was regarding the order of the District Magistrate passed under Sec. 14(1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) directing the authorised officer of the Respondent to take possession of the secured asset with police assistance. Apparently, this order appears to be erroneous because an order to take possession can only be made to an officer who is subordinate to the District Magistrate. The authorised officer of the Bank is not an officer who is subordinate to the District Magistrate and therefore, he cannot take possession even with police assistance as ordered, and therefore, this Tribunal finds no reason to interfere with the order of the

¶8

¶9

D.R.T. which is only to be confirmed. The Appellant had earlier approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court with the Writ Petition No. 2440 of 2016 and there was interim relief granted to the Appellant to stall handing over of the property as directed by the impugned order. Subsequently, this appeal was filed before this Tribunal during the pendency of the appeal and it was left for this by the Hon’ble High Court to this Tribunal to decide on the extension of stay.

¶10

The submission made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant that a fresh application will be moved before the District Magistrate or necessary steps have been taken for rectification of the order passed by the District Magistrate for which some time will be required and therefore, the Ld. Counsel seeks to put on hold the handing over the possession till fresh steps are taken by the Appellant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the request is reasonable and hence, the order directing the Appellant to hand over possession of the secured assets shall be put on hold for a period of 60 days within which the Appellant is at liberty to move the District Magistrate again for appropriate order under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶12

mks-14

¶13

Eddlelwiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. M/S Arti Roadways Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eddlelwiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. M/S Arti Roadways Pvt. Ltd.

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr Naresh N Jain and Ors.

Vinod Nimnath Sonar versus the Authorized Officer Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Bank of India & Anr. versus Ashrf Husain Mian & Ors.

Raj Decor versus Bank of Baroda

Pramod Washudeo Harshe versus Bank of Baroda

Bankim Mehta versus Punjab National Bank