This archive judgment records the agenda and initial listing of an appeal filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The court directed the bank to show cause as to why a notice was not issued to the authorized officer and listed the matter for the next date.
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.
Appeal Dy. No. 298/2023 Date: 11.04.2023
Union Bank of India Vs. Prayan Ispat and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Present: Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the appellant,
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the final order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the DRT, Dehradun in S.A. No. 104/2019.
Perusal of the order impugned shows that the S.A.-applicants along with Bank is involved in high-jacking of whole system and the Bank is aiding the respondent-borrower on regular basis as no action has been taken by the Bank with regard to the recovery certificate for the last five years.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the court receiver was appointed by the DRT itself on the application of the S.A.-applicants/borrowers, therefore, the Bank could not have proceeded with the recovery certificate before the Recovery Officer, which has not been considered by the Tribunal below.
Considering the observations made by the Tribunal below, let the notice be issued to the Authorized Officer concerned of the appellant-bank through speed post to remain present on the next date. Steps to be taken by the counsel for the appellant within a week. Affidavit of service along with postal receipt as well as tracking report be filed by the next date.
List this case on 17.07.2023.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal considered the applicability of section 17 of the SARFAESI Act regarding the appointment of court receiver before proceeding with the recovery certificate.
Whether the absence of action against the borrower's recovery certificate for five years affects the Bank's right to proceed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union Bank of India
Prayan Ispat and Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Justice R. D. Khare
Justice Anupam
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
