The Debt Recovery Tribunal Bench in Chennai dismissed an appeal filed by ICICI Bank against an order allowing State Bank of India to proceed with recovery measures subject to remitting surplus sale proceeds to ICICI Bank.
Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their own costs; pending IAs closed.
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.
MA 23/2017
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 23rd of April, 2024
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
MA 23/2017
[IA 1280/2015 in IA 81/2014 in OA 59/2014 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)
Between
ICICI Bank Limited,
West Wing, Plot No. 24, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. Rep. by Mr. M. Gopalakrishnan, Collection Manager
….Appellant
AND
1
MA 23/2017
…..Respondents
(R2 to R5 are given up)
Counsel for Appellant : Mr. E. Thamizharasan Counsel for 1st Respondent : M/s. Ramalingam and Associates
2
MA 23/2017
ORDER
III, Chennai, in IA 1280/2015 in IA 81/2014 in OA 59/2014.
Appellant herein advanced loans to Respondents 2 to 5 herein, and filed OA for recovery of amount, and in that OA, filed an IA 81/2014 seeking direction against Respondents 2 to 5 herein, to furnish security to a tune of Rs.75,71,103.03p and in default, to order attachment of property belonging to Respondents 2 to 5 herein. DRT ordered attachment on 18.02.2014.
In that OA, first Respondent herein filed IA 1280/2015, contending that the same property is
mortgaged in favour of State Bank of India (SBI) and in view
3
MA 23/2017
of attachment Order, they are not in a position to proceed under SARFAESI Act, 2002, and prayed for raising of attachment.
Considering the contentions and rival contentions of both parties, Tribunal below passed impugned Order permitting SBI to proceed in accordance with law, without the effect of attachment in favour of Appellant herein, for recovery of its dues, but however, to remit the surplus sale proceeds remaining, if any, to Appellant herein. Aggrieved by said Order, present Appeal is filed.
have no other property and vehicle given as security and hypothecated to Appellant Bank has now become scrap and loans are given to build body of vehicle. He submitted, under Section 19 (13) of RDB Act, 1993, Appellant sought for attachment before judgement, and for protecting interest
4
MA 23/2017
of Appellant, attachment may be continued and Order of Tribunal below may be set aside.
5
MA 23/2017
viewed in any angle, Order of Tribunal below in raising attachment, cannot be interfered with and it is quite legal
and justifiable Order, protecting the interest of both parties.
8. For the above reasons, it is held that, Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result , Appeal M.A:23/2017 is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed
[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 23rd of April, 2024]
[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar]
CHAIRPERSON
6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal permitting attachment to be raised by another bank without a vesting order violates the interest of the appellant-bank?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ICICI Bank Limited
State Bank of India Stressed Asset Management Branch
M/s. Om Timber Mart
Mr. Kishore N Patel
Mr. Haresh N Patel
Mr. Pravin N Patel
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
19 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
