Allowed

Shishir Sadani v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. and Ors.

DRAT19 Apr 2024MISC APPEAL/25/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal against a DRT order that dismissed a petition for settlement by a guarantor director. The Tribunal held that the director, ready to pay all dues, was entitled to enter the lawful settlement with the financial institution holding a valid SARFAESI loan agreement. The impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned DRT-3 Kolkata dismissed for settlement was set aside. Parties directed to appear on 03.05.2024 for verification of settlement agreement.

Shishir Sadani versus Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2024

¶4

(Arising out of IA No. 1125 of 2024 in S.A. no. 617 of 2022 – DRT-3 Kolkata)

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

19.04.2024

¶7

Shishir Sadani, residing at P-599, Hemanta Mukhopadhyay Sarani, Kolkata – 700055.

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. having office at PS Srijan Tech Park, 11^th floor, DN 52, Sector – V, Salt Lake, Kolkata

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. having office at PS Srijan Tech Park, 11^th floor, DN 52, Sector – V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700091.

¶12

Krishna Kumar Sadani, residing at Flat No. 15/16, Gour Apartment, 281, S.K. Deb Road, Laketown, Kolkata – 700048.

¶13

Samir Chatterjee, residing at 5/1, Keyatala Road, Kolkata – 700029.

¶14

Indranil Chatterjee, residing at 5/1, Keyatala Road, Kolkata – 700029.

¶15

Devleena Chatterjee, residing at 5/1, Keyatala Road, Kolkata – 700029.

¶16

Bewell Labs Pvt. Ltd. having office at 221, Purba Para, Rabindranagar, Near Lashkarpur PO, Kolkata – 700153.

¶17

Bewell Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. having office at 221, Purba Para, Rabindranagar, Near Lashkarpur PO, Kolkata – 700153.

… Respondents

For Appellant :

Mr. Subhankar Nag, Learned Advocate. Mr. Somnath Roy, ld. adv.

¶22

For Respondent :

¶23

Mr. Avisekh Guha, ld. adv.

¶24

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶26

Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned DRT-3, Kolkata, whereby I.A. No. 1125 of 2024 filed by the parties for settlement was dismissed holding that S.A. applicant has no locus standi to settle the matter with the secured creditor, financial institution. Being aggrieved appellant preferred the appeal.

¶27

As far as pleadings of the parties and submission made by the parties are concerned it is not in dispute that appellant herein is one of the Directors of mortgagor/guarantor company, who were paying instalments of the loan since long. However, certain defaults were made in repayment of loan and respondent no.1 and 2, financial institution, initiated SARFAESI actions. Accordingly, notices were issued by the financial institution under SARFAESI Act. Feeling aggrieved, appellant herein filed application u/s 17 of the Act before the learned DRT. Pending SARFAESI application, settlement has arrived at between the parties wherein instant appellant being Director of the guarantor company is ready and willing to make payment of the entire dues which is duly accepted by the secured creditor, financial

¶28

¶29

institution. It is also not in dispute that appellant herein is one of the Director of the guarantor company. Accordingly, when one of the Directors of the guarantor as well as secured creditor has entered into an agreement for settlement which is not unlawful, rather it is lawful agreement for settlement wherein the matter is settled between the parties. Appellant is ready and willing to make payment of the entire dues of the secured creditor. In such circumstances, appellant is entitled for entering into an agreement for settlement. Accordingly, impugned order could not be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned DRT-3 Kolkata is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before learned DRT-3 Kolkata on 03.05.2024 for verification of settlement agreement arrived at between the parties. No costs.

¶32

File be consigned to record room.

¶33

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

¶34

Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶35

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 day of April, 2024.

¶36

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶37

Dated: 19.04.2024 04/pkb

¶38

Shishir Sadani v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishir Sadani v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandarani Naskar versus Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltt

Rushnlo Kemp versus Vijaya Bank

Union Bank of India versus Whitemen Constructions Private lIMITED

Indian Bank versus Bairagya Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ms Alana Hotels And Resorts Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Pinku Banerjee versus United Bank of India Now Punjab National Bank