The DRT-2 Delhi appellate bench disposed of an appeal against a protection order granted to borrowers under the SARFAESI Act, directing the lower tribunal to decide the main appeal on merits regarding NPA classification.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No.596/2022 (Stay)
In
Misc. Appeal No.151/2022
Between
Axis Bank … Appellant/s
V/s.
Vinayak Metal Industries & Ors. …Respondent/s Mr Bhavesh Poojary i/b M/s. MDP & Partners, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr Ismail Nasikwala, Advocate for Respondents.
-: Order dated: 19/09/2024:-
The appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 18.10.2022 in I.A. No. 1827/2022 in S.A. at Diary No. 2325/2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Pune (D.R.T) whereby protection was granted to the borrowers against the Sarfaesi action taken by the appellant bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“ the SARFAESI Act” for short) for recovery of debt allegedly due from them and on prima facie finding it was observed that the classification of the account as Non Performing Asset (NPA) during the moratorium period declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears to have been classified as NPA and therefore, the borrowers are entitled to protection but the protection was not unconditional.
1
liberty to proceed with the Sarfaesi measures in case the amount was not deposited. Aggrieved by this order, the bank has come in appeal.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that this appeal has now become infructuous. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant was heard in detail. It is noticed that the finding of the Ld. Presiding Officer regarding the wrong classification of the account as NPA is only a prima facie finding and therefore, prima facie it appears that the bank account has wrongly classified this account and therefore, there is no justification for proceedings with this appeal. The appeal is disposed of with a direction to the D.R..T to dispose of the S.A. within three months from the date of receipt of this order, on merits, including the point regarding classification of the debt as NPA, untrammelled by whatever is observed prima facie in the impugned order.
rm-16
Sd/Chairperson
2
Axis Bank
Vinayak Metal Industries & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
