Shamim Jahan v. State Bank of India

Appeal Dy. No. 799/2023 Date: 27.06.2023

Shamim Jahan Vs. State Bank of India

Ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri Ashok Pandey is present.

Regarding defects pointed out by the registry at point No. 1, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that reply has been given in Para 19 of the Application regarding maintainability of the Misc. Application instead of Appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

Citing provisions contained in section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act read with 17 (2) of the RDB Act, he has further submitted that the Application may be heard either on the administrative side or judicial side.

Regarding the defects pointed out at point No. 4, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that since it is not an Appeal and hence, no predeposit is required, therefore, there is no issue regarding filing of notice under section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act.

However, section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act pertains to DRTs only and section 17 (2) of the RDB Act clearly mentions entertaining Appeal by the Appellate Tribunal any order made by the DRT

As such, submissions made by the Ld. Cousnel are not sustainable in terms of the provisions referred to above.

An opportunity is granted to the appellants for removal of the defects by filing Appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act as relief has been sought for quashing the order dated 23.06.2023 passed in S.A. NO. 338/2023 by DRT, Allahabad. Moreover, condition of pre-deposit is also required as well as notice under section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act along with filing in the format of Misc. Appeal.