Appeal filed against DRT order dated 19.02.2018. Counsel submitted the sale notice of 18.01.2018 was infructuous as no sale was held. Consequently, findings on merits were unwarranted and the appeal also became infructuous.
The appeal was dismissed as it became infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Appeal No. 72 of 2018
(Arising out of S.A. 1478 of 2017 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
18.07.2023 Narayan Bhai Patel … Appellant -VsUCO Bank & 2 Others … Respondents Mr. B. Sreenivasa Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Sailesh Mishra, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Vakalatnama filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 is taken on record.
Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellants as well as Respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is served but is not represented.
2. At the very outset Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the SARFAESI Application No. 1478 of 2017 which was decided on 19th February, 2018, there was no requirement to decide the same on merits.
3. It is admitted between the Learned Counsel for the parties that first notice of sale was issued on 10th November, 2017 but the sale could not be held. Subsequently, another sale notice dated 18th January, 2018 was issued but the sale could not be held. As far as subsequent sale notice is concerned, amendment was sought in the relief clause of the SARFAESI Application which was allowed. Thereafter when
2
the sale was not materialized, third sale notice was issued on 23rd February, 2018 wherein the sale was fixed on 13th March, 2018 on which date the sale was conducted.
4. As far as the present appeal is concerned, it is filed against the order dated 19th February, 2018 wherein the Learned DRT has considered the sale notice dated 18th January, 2018. It is admitted that no sale was conducted in compliance of the sale notice dated 18th January, 2018, accordingly, the same became infructuous. Hence, when the notice itself became infructuous as no sale was held in compliance of the same, all the findings recorded by the Learned DRT on merits are unwarranted. Since this appeal is also filed against the impugned order which relates to the sale notice dated 18th January, 2018 which was infructuous, this appeal also becomes infructuous and is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record room.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website. Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated 18th July, 2023 14/ac
Narayan Bhai Patel
UCO Bank & 2 Others
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
