Dismissed

Uco Bank v. Saraswati Bastralay

DRAT12 Jun 2023REGULAR APPEAL/97/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against DRT orders challenging an amendment application in a SARFAESI case where maintainability was kept open. Appellant cited a High Court judgment to claim illegality. The Tribunal distinguished the cited case on facts, held no illegality existed as maintainability remained open, and dismissed the appeal, directing the DRT to decide the application with maintainability issues.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; DRT directed to decide SARFAESI application along with maintainability issue expeditiously.

Uco Bank versus Saraswati Bastralay — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal No. 97 of 2022

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 369 of 2021 in DRT –III, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

12.06.2023 UCO Bank & Another … Appellants -VsSaraswati Bastralay & Another … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rathin Dey, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶7

Mr. Debasish Karmakar with Mr. Satyam Ojha, Learned Counsel for Respondents

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

Two prayers were made by the Learned Counsel for Appellant in Memo of Appeal whereby challenge was made to the orders dated 11^th November, 2021 and 28^th September, 2021 passed by Learned DRT.

¶11

During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for Appellant ‘Not Pressed’ the prayer (b) challenging the order dated 28^th September, 2021. Accordingly, challenge to the order dated 28^th September, 2021, as made in prayer (b) of the appeal, is dismissed as ‘Not Pressed’.

¶12

As far as order dated 11^th November, 2021 is concerned, by the impugned order it appears that the issue of maintainability was kept open by the Learned DRT. Further an amendment application, being I.A. 2554 of 2021,

¶13

¶14

was allowed. Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that the amendment application was allowed without considering the issue of maintainability. Learned Counsel places reliance upon an order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta passed in W.P. No. 3996 (W) of 2015 with CAN 1390 of 2015 (Smt. Kamala Devi Mishra & Others -vs- Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others). On the strength of the judgment, Learned Counsel submits that Learned DRT had committed illegality in allowing the amendment application by keeping the issue of maintainability open.

¶15

Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that a SARFAESI Application was filed wherein there is an issue regarding maintainability wherein a supplementary affidavit was filed. Learned Counsel further submits that an amendment application was also filed which was rightly allowed by the Learned DRT. It appears that SARFAESI Application was initially filed by one Saraswati Bastralay. As per Learned Counsel for Respondent it was a proprietorship farm and by the amendment, the name of the proprietor, Sri Swapan Kumar Nath, was added as Applicant No. 2.

¶16

As far as legality of the impugned order is concerned, Applicant No. 2 was impleaded as proprietor of SARFAESI Applicant No. 1 and the issue of maintainability was kept open by the Learned DRT.

¶17

As far as judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is concerned, the facts of that case are different; accordingly, Appellant cannot take advantage of that judgment.

¶18

¶19

As far as impugned order is concerned, the issue of maintainability is still open and the Appellant can raise all the issues before the Learned DRT. Learned DRT will decide all the issues raised in accordance with law.

¶20

Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the order. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The appeal is dismissed. Learned DRT is hereby directed to decide the SARFAESI Application, along with the issue of maintainability, expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶23

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

¶24

File be consigned to Record room.

¶25

Order dictated, signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶27

Dated 12^th June, 2023

¶28

12/ac

Uco Bank v. Saraswati Bastralay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Saraswati Bastralay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Trust Bank Limited versus Indian Bank

Ms Goutham Sai Granites Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Hdfc Bank

B Shiva Shankar versus Bank of India

Ms Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus Pailan Educational Trust

Bank of India versus M/s. B.N Parida

Kennington Industries Private Limited versus State Bank of India