Disposed

Yes Bank v. Debabrata Das

DRAT19 Jun 2024MISC APPEAL/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay and rejected the application for impleadment of the CJM. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the DRT to decide the SARFAESI application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; application for impleadment of CJM rejected; Directions to DRT to decide SARFAESI application within three months passed.

Yes Bank versus Debabrata Das — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 442 of 2024)

¶3

(Arising out of NDN No. 175/2024 (S.A.) in DRT-1, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

CHAIRPERSON

¶6

The Authorised Officer, Yes Bank Limited, having its office at RSSC, 1^st Floor, Stephen House, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kolkata -700001.

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

1. Debabrata Das, residing at Baltikuri Naskarpara, Howrah Corporation, Howrah, Pin 711113

¶10

… Respondent Counsel for the parties Mr. Proshit Deb, Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Ms. Benzir Khan, Ms. Chaitali Acharjee, Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Debasish Chakrabarty, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶11

JUDGMENT : On 19^th June, 2024

¶12

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

Admission

I.A. No. 265 of 2024

I.A. No. 298 of 2024

I.A. No. 265 of 2024 application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 29 days in

¶17

¶18

preferring the Appeal. Sole Respondent is represented through Mr. Debasish Chakrabarty, Learned Counsel. Vakalatnama is already on record. It is submitted that the delay is not intentional. Rather it is procedural.

¶19

2. Having considered the submissions, I found the ground to be sufficient. Accordingly, I.A. No. 265 of 2024 is allowed. Let the Appeal be registered as regular appeal by providing a regular appeal number. 3. I.A. No. 298 of 2024 application for amendment to implead the Chief Judicial Magistrate as Respondent. Since the Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order in his official capacity there is no requirement of impleading him as an opposite party. Accordingly, I.A. No. 298 of 2024 is rejected.

¶20

4. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the very outset Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Learned DRT has passed an interim order without considering the issue that the SARFAESI Application was filed beyond the period of limitation. It is further submitted that Learned DRT has passed a cryptic order regarding the issue of taking possession by the secured creditor.

¶21

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that the issue of limitation was prima facie decided by the Learned DRT. As far as the issue of interim order is concerned, SARFAESI Application is yet to be decided wherein objections have been invited.

¶22

¶23

6. Having gone through the impugned order, I found that the Learned DRT has recorded a finding on the issue of limitation. However, this order is passed without inviting the written objections from the secured creditor. Hence, the issue of limitation would remain subject to the final outcome of the SARFAESI application wherein the secured creditor would have an opportunity to file his objections as far as limitation is concerned.

¶24

7. Interim order is passed by the Learned DRT pending S.A. It is expected that the Learned DRT since has passed an interim order pending S.A., DRT should make an endeavour to decide the S.A. expeditiously and has to dispose of the same preferably within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is placed before the Learned DRT. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made above, Appeal is disposed of with the directions as contained in the body of the judgment.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Appeal is disposed of with the directions as contained in the body of the judgment.

¶27

No Order as to costs.

¶28

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶29

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶30

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶31

¶32

Order pronounced by me in the open Court today i.e. on 19^th June, 2024.

¶33

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶34

Dated: 19^th June, 2024

¶35

5/tp

Yes Bank v. Debabrata Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Debabrata Das

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

K Premsagar Rao and Others versus Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Emta Coal Limited

1.M/S N.E. Infratrade. 2) Mr Neeraj Deka versus Bank of Baroda

Hdfc Bank versus Debabrata Ghosh

Bishnu Pada Ghosh versus State Bank of India

Vasantha Arumugam versus South Indian Bank