Sat Pal Yadav v. Noble Co. Opretive Bank Ltd.

Appeal Dy. No. 478/2022 Dated : 20.12.2023

Satpal Yadav & Anr. Vs. Noble Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Present: Shri Harsh Chopra, counsel for the appellant, Shri V.K. Dixit, counsel for the respondent-Bank,

Heard the learned counsels for the parties on the application filed by the respondent-Bank against the maintainability of the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank (applicant in the present application) submitted that he has filed the present application regarding maintainability of the present appeal on the grounds that the S.A. filed by the appellant (in the present appeal) was dismissed by the Tribunal below vide order dated 25.07.2022 on various grounds, one of them being barred by limitation from the date of possession notice dated 19/11/2018 and the other was that there was no application for amendment in the pleadings of S.A. with regard to challenge of sale notices dated 04/12/2020 and 15/01/2021.

It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank/applicant that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the aforesaid order before this Tribunal, but the appellant has not complied with the mandatory requirements of pre-deposit as stipulated under the said Act and the representation under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act against the demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was also not filed by the appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that as per settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present appeal is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the S.A. filed before the DRT on 25/09/2019 was well within limitation from the measure taken under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act as it is settled proposition of law that every measure taken under section 13(4) of the said Act gives rise to fresh cause of action in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. Vs. Ashok Saw Mill, decided on 16.07.2009 and Kanhaiyalal Lal Chand Sachdev Vs. State of Maharasthra & Others, decided 07.02.2011, but the Tribunal below has erred in dismissing the possession notice dated 19/11/2018 being barred by limitation for want of application for condonation of delay and further held that no relief can be granted to the appellant for want of pleadings in the S.A with regard to the auction sale dated 23/12/2020 and 01/02/2021 and also observed that there is no relief sought by the appellants with regard to the order dated 27/04/2019 passed by the D.M., Gautambudh Nagar.