The DRT a stated that ACJM orders cannot be rectified but must be challenged via writ petitions. It directed the Presiding Officer to dispose of the Securitisation Appeal on merits, keeping the rectification issue open for a fresh hearing.
Ordering disposal of the Securitisation Appeal on merits and keeping the issue of rectifying the ACJM order open.
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. 668/2024 (Stay) In Misc. Appeal No. 168/2024
Between
Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda … Appellant/s
V/s.
M/s Rahul Enterprises & Anr. …Respondent/s
Mr N. K. Fuladi, Advocate for Appellant Bank.
Mr Radhe Agarwal, Advocate for Respondents appeared through Video Conferencing.
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the appellant for seeking urgent relief.
The appellant bank is in appeal impugning the order dated 06.09.2024 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1602 of 2024 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 88 of 2024 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T.) wherein the I.A. was allowed to the extent that the order obtained under Sec. 14 by the bank from the ACJM, Nagpur is not sustainable because it was obtained against the person who was already dead and therefore, a direction has been given to the bank to get the order of the ACJM rectify and the status quo was directed to be maintained. The appellant is mainly aggrieved by the direction of the D.R.T. directing the bank to get the order of the AJCM rectified.
1
cannot be rectified. It can only be challenged in the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore, such a direction is not ex facie sustainable. Secondly, the fact whether there was intimation regarding the death to the bank by the deceased person’s legal heirs and whether that has been communicated to the bank and despite receiving that communication, the bank proceeded to apply under Sec. 14 and obtained an order is the question which will have to be decided in the S.A. It is not appropriate at this stage to conclude that the order of the ACJM is not sustainable. Probably, the intention of the Ld. P.O. was only to find the existence of a prima facie case, an order to maintain the status quo was allowed.
The Ld. Presiding Officer is directed to dispose of the S.A. itself as expeditiously as possible and the issue regarding the validity of the ACJM order under Sec. 14 is kept open to be decided afresh untrammelled by what is observed in the impugned order. With these observations, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of.
mks-05
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an interlocutory direction to rectify an order obtained by the bank u/s 14 IPC against a deceased person is sustainable.
Whether the challenge to the validity of the ACJM order should be decided in the Securitisation Appeal itself or adjourned.
Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda
M/s Rahul Enterprises & Anr.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
