Allowed

Smt Satyabhama Khemka v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

DRAT16 Oct 2023TRANSFER PETITION/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT permitted the transfer of four pending Special Summary Applications from DRT-I Hyderabad to DRT-II Hyderabad. The Tribunal held that a Presiding Officer's knowledge of a party warrants recusal but rejected objections for transfer beyond the State based on unproven allegations of political connections.

What did the court decide?

Special Summary Applications No. 49, 54, 318, and 319 of 2019 recalled from DRT-I Hyderabad and transferred to DRT-II Hyderabad for disposal.

Smt Satyabhama Khemka versus Punjab National Bank and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

¶2

7IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Transfer Petition No. 01; 02; 03 and 04 of 2023,

¶4

(Arising out of SA No.49, 54, 318 and 319 of 2019 in DRT-I Hyderabad)

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶6

16.10.2023

¶7

Transfer Application 01 of 2023

¶8

Transfer Application No. 02 of 2023

¶9

Transfer Application No. 03 of 2023

¶10

….. Respondents

¶11

Transfer Application No. 04 of 2023

¶12

….. Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. B. Sanjay Kumar, ld. Advocate. Mr. V. Kavendu, Ld. Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Trishita Bers, ld. Advocate. Mr. A.V.Gopal Rao, ,Respondents no. 17 to 21 Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, ld. Advocate Ms. Sarmistha Pal, ld. Advocate.

¶14

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶15

Letter dated 14.07.2023 written by learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Hyderabad to the effect that S.A. 49, 54, 318 and 319 of

¶16

¶17

2019 are pending in the file of DRT-I, Hyderabad and they are batch matters. One of the applicants in the said S.A.s is known to him. Accordingly, he made a request that all the four S.A.s may be transferred to any other DRT.

¶18

In view of the Provision of Section 17A(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) notices were issued to the parties. Mr. B. Sanjay Kumar, ld. Advocate is present for the SARFAESI applicant, Mr. Trishita Bers, ld. Advocate, is present for respondent ASREC (India) Ltd. and Mr. A.V.Gopal Rao, for Respondents no. 17 to 21 is present.

¶19

Objection is filed by the respondent no. 17 to 21.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶21

records.

¶22

Section 17A (2) of the Act reads as under :

¶23

“The Chairperson of an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the Tribunals may, on the application of any of the parties or on his own motion after notice to the parties and after hearing them, transfer any case from one Tribunal for disposal to any other Tribunal.”

¶24

Bare perusal of the provision will show that Chairperson, DRAT, Kolkata is empowered to transfer an application from one Tribunal to any other Tribunal. In the present case a request for transfer is made by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I Hyderabad on the ground that one of the SARFAESI applicants is known to him. So, all the four S.A.s may be transferred from its file. It is a ground for recusal of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Hyderabad from hearing of all the four S.A.s.

¶25

¶26

As far as transfer on this ground is concerned, there cannot be two opinion that when the Presiding Officer knows some of the parties in the matter, it would be appropriate for him not to hear and decide the case. But the learned counsel for respondent no. 17 to 21 raised objections that matter may be transferred to any other DRT except DRT-II, Hyderabad and DRT-Visakhapatnam.

¶27

All the four S.A.s are pending since 2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Opposite Party that learned Presiding Officer heard the matters for about two years and disposed of certain IAs, but he has taken stand after hearing the matters to seek recusal from the cases. As far as bona fide of Presiding Officer, DRT-I Hyderabad are concerned, no allegations have been levelled against learned Presiding Officer by either of the parties. As far as transfer of cases to some other DRT is concerned general allegations are made that the matters may be transferred to any other DRTs other than DRT-II Hyderabad and DRT-Visakhapatnam. General allegations have been made against the both the DRTs cannot be accepted. Dispute relates to Hyderabad where two DRTs are functioning. No objection is raised for transfer of the S.A.s from DRT-I Hyderabad. A general objection is raised that the applicants have good political connections, hence, matters may be transferred outside the State of Telangana or Andhra Pradesh. Such type of general observations by a litigant cannot be good ground for transfer of S.A. outside the State of Andhra Pradesh or Telangana. A litigant

¶28

¶29

may be having good political connections or image but it does not mean that his litigation should be transferred to other State. If this would be the situation, no case of a politician can remain pending in his own State. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for Opposite Party. In such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no. 17 to 21.

¶30

Since the matters are pending at Hyderabad and there are two DRTs at Hyderabad, it would be appropriate that the matters be recalled from the file of DRT-I Hyderabad and be transferred to the file of DRT-II Hyderabad.

¶31

Accordingly, request of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I Hyderabad made in the letter dated 14.07.2023 is allowed. All the four S.A.s No. 49, 54, 318 and 319 of 201 9 are recalled from the file of DRT-I Hyderabad and are transferred to the file of DRTII Hyderabad for disposal in accordance with law.

¶32

Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of all the connected matters.

¶33

File be consigned to record room.

¶34

Copy be also forwarded to the appellant and respondent also to the concerned DRT.

¶35

Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶36

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 day of September, 2023.

¶37

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶38

Dated : 16.10.2023 01 /pkb

¶39

Smt Satyabhama Khemka v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Satyabhama Khemka v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

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

Ramakrishnaiah Muli versus State Bank of India

Ms Swetha Exports versus Bank of India

Sol Backbay Aqua Limited versus Industrial Investment Bank Of India Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms Rajeswari Dairy and Anr.

Fortune Motors Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Ms Haldia Nirman Projects Private Limited versus Punjab National Bank