Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr Sudhanshu Sekhar Padhi

DRAT9 Apr 2024MISC APPEAL/9/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an appeal by Union Bank of India challenging an interim order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack, which lacked reasoned findings on prima facie case, balance of inconvenience, and irreparable loss. The Tribunal set aside the unreasoned order and remanded the matter for decision on merits within three months. Status quo was maintained during the pendency of the remand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to DRT to decide the Saint A. and I.A. on merits within three months, maintaining status quo in the meantime.

Union Bank of India versus Mr Sudhanshu Sekhar Padhi — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Misc . Appeal No. 09 of 2024

¶3

(Arising out of I.A. 1656 of 2023 in S.A. 129 of 2023 DRT- Cuttack)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

09.04.2024

¶6

The Authorised Officer, UNION BANK OF INDIA having registered office at Nilkantha Nagar Branch at Near Lingaraj Hall, Berhampur, District Ganjam, Odisha 760 002

¶7

2.Branch manager Union Bank of India residing at Nilkantha Nagar Branch, Near Lingaraj Hall, Berhampur, District- Ganjam, Odisha – 760002.

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

--Vs--

¶10

MR SUDHANSHU SEKHAR PADHI having office at 2nd Lane Ramnagar PO Kamapali, Berhampur, District Ganjam Pin Code 760004.

¶11

2.Collector cum District Magistrate,office at PO. Chatrapur, Districtganjam, PIN 761020.

¶12

3.Abhishek Choudhury residing at Indira Nagar, 1st Lane, Industrial Estate, PO- Lajjipalli, Berhampur Sadar, Dist.- Ganjam – 760008.

¶13

Mrs. Amita Kr. Padhi, residing at 2^nd lane, Ramnagar, PO Kamapali, Dist. Berhampur, 760004.

¶14

Mrs. Nibedita Nayak 6.Prerit Kumar Nayak

¶15

7.Adwiti Nayak

¶16

All respondent no.5,6,7 are resident of Gunupur, PO, Keluapali, Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam, 760101.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For the appellants : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mukherjee, ld. Advocate

¶19

For the respondents:Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. adv.

¶20

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶21

Instant miscellaneous appeal No. 09 of 2024 has arisen

¶22

against the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by learned DRT, Cuttack in I.A. No. 1656 of 2023 arising out of S.A. No. 129 of 2023 whereby I.A. was allowed with the direction upon the appellant bank not to proceed further till the next date and

¶23

¶24

respondent herein was directed to deposit Rs.10.00 lakh by way of demand draft on or before 28.12.2023 failing which interim order stands vacated. Feeling aggrieved the appellant bank preferred the appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in compliance of the order passed by learned DRT, Rs.10.00 lakh was deposited through demand draft to the Registrar, DRT, Cuttack.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶27

Bare perusal of the impugned order will show that learned DRT has simply recorded submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and recorded its satisfaction regarding existence of prima facie case in favour of the SARFAESI applicant without assigning any reason. Such order cannot stand in the eye of law. Learned DRT should have recorded its finding with cogent reason while granting interim order that there is a prima facie case coupled with balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss or injury that would have faced by the applicant if such interim protection is not granted. Without assigning any reason impugned order was passed by the learned DRT which cannot be said to be a judicial order and said order is liable to be set aside.

¶28

On the basis of the discussion made above, instant appeal is liable to be allowed and matter deserves to be remanded back to

¶29

¶30

learned DRT for deciding the S.A. on merit within a specified period.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.11.2023 passed by learned DRT, Cuttack is set aside. Matter is remanded back to learned DRT, Cuttack to decide the S.A. No. 129 of 2023 along with I.A. No. 1656 of 2023 within a period of three months from today. However, till the matter is taken up by the learned DRT appellant bank shall not proceed further and shall maintain status quo in the matter.No order as to costs.

¶33

File be consigned to record room.

¶34

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondent and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT forthwith.

¶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 9^th day of April, 2024.

(Anil

Kumar Srivastava,J)

Chairperson

Dated: 09.04.2024 08/pkb

¶41

Union Bank of India v. Mr Sudhanshu Sekhar Padhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr Sudhanshu Sekhar Padhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Rakhi Karmakar Mallick versus State Bank of India

Jayanta Banik versus Federal Bank

Ms Swetha Exports versus Bank of India

Sandeep Kabra and Anr. versus Uco Bank and Ors.

Uco Bank versus Kakali Sarkar and Ors.

Durgapur Corporation Private Limited versus Punjab National Bank