Canara Bank v. MD Sahajuddin Mondal
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against an order preventing the Bank from taking possession of property. The Tribunal held that since the District Magistrate's order lapsed due to expiry of fix months without extension sought by the Bank, no intervention was warranted. Appeal dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by DRT-III Kolkata was confirmed.
What the court decided
Reportable/ Not Reportable
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 879 of 2024)
(Arising out of S.A. No. 832 of 2023 in DRT – III Kolkata)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
- Canara Bank carrying on business inter alia from its Malatipur Branch, Malatipur, Chaita, North Parganas, Pin743445, under Police Station- Matia, West Bengal, within the ambit of Recovery & Legal Section, Regional Office Kolkata-II, Kolkata, situated at 2nd Floor, 651 Anandapur, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata -700107.
- Authorised Officer, Canara Bank at Regional Office KolkataII, Kolkata, situated at 2nd Floor, 651 Anandapur, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata -700107.
…Appellants
-Versus-
- Md. Sahajuddin Mondal, son of Mr. Jobedali Mandal, residing at Jagatpur, Post Office-Ghona, District North 24 Parganas, Pin - 743445, under Police Station- Basirhat, West Bengal.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal was justified in restraining the Bank from taking physical possession as District Magistrate's order had lapsed due to expiry of six months without extension.
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to intervene in the District Magistrate's proceedings regarding extension of time.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Canara Bank
- respondent
Md. Sahajuddin Mondal
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · October
- CNR
- 191090008792024
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court