Dismissed

Smt. Swapna Ghosh v. Indian Bank

DRAT11 Dec 2024MISC APPEAL/86/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In DRT Appeal No. 408 of 2024, a single judge of the DRTA Kolkata dismissed the appellants' simple appeal against the DRT-1 Kolkata's order. The Tribunal observed there was no merit in the appeal, noting that the auction was completed and a pending SARFAESI application allowed the appellant to raise issues before the DRT. The impugned order was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 by DRT-1 Kolkata was confirmed. The appellant was at liberty to raise issues in the pending SARFAESI Application.

Smt. Swapna Ghosh versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 408 of 2024) (Arising out of I.A. No. 754 of 2024 in SA. 102 of 2024 in DRT -1, Kolkata)

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

Swapna Ghosh, (Prop of M/s Baroma Construction), Ramkrishna Lane, P.O. and P.S. Barasat, Kolkata 700124.

¶6

Smt. Rita Ghosh, Ramkrishna Lane, P.O. and P.S. Barasat, Kolkata 700124.

¶7

Sri Susanta Ghosh, Ramkrishna Lane, P.O. and P.S. Barasat, Kolkata 700124.

¶8

…Appellants

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

Indian Bank, Stressed Assets Management Large Kolkata Branch, 14 India Exchange Place, 1^st Floor, Indian Bank Building, Kolkata 700001

¶11

Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Stressed Assets Management Large Kolkata Branch, 14 India Exchange Place, 1^st Floor, Indian Bank Building, Kolkata 700001.

¶12

Smt. Kumkum Saha, I.A. 23 SEC 3, Saltlake City, Bidhanagar Kolkata 700097.

¶13

Smt. Kajal Roy Chowdhury, Talikhola P.O. Noapara, P.S. Barasat, Dist. 24 Parganas (North), Kolkata 700125

¶14

Smt. Ratna Saha, FE 491 Ground Floor, Near Netaji Statue Central Park, Saltlake City, Kolkata 700106.

¶15

Sri Raja Saha, FE 491 Ground Floor, Near Netaji Statue Central Park, Saltlake City, Kolkata 700106.

¶16

Smt. Riya Saha, FE 491 Ground Floor, Near Netaji Statue Central Park, Saltlake City, Kolkata 700106.

¶17

… Respondents

¶18

¶19

Counsel for the parties Mr. Dhiman Roy, Mr. Dip Chanda, Mr. Pritam Modak, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

¶20

Mr. Debasish Chakrabarty, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank

¶21

JUDGMENT : On 11^th December, 2024

¶22

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶23

I.A. No. 344 of 2024

¶24

I.A. No. 344 of 2024 Application for waiver from making pre deposit under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶25

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the Record.

¶26

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that Appellant is neither borrower nor guarantor of the Respondent. He is the developer of the secured assets. 4. Having considered the submissions, I found the ground to be sufficient. Accordingly, I.A. No. 344 of 2024 is allowed.

¶27

5. Let the Appeal be registered as regular Appeal by providing a regular appeal number.

¶28

6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

¶30

7. Instant Appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 09.04.2024 whereby the I.A. No. 754 of 2024 was dismissed wherein the Sale Notice dated 19.02.2024 is challenged. Learned DRT has placed reliance upon Section 13 (13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which provides as under:

¶31

“(13) No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in subsection (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor.”

¶32

8. I have gone through the impugned order. I do not find any illegality in the order. Rather, Learned DRT has rightly placed reliance upon Section 13 (13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Further, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that in pursuance of the Sale Notice, auction proceedings are already completed. However, SARFAESI Application is still pending wherein the Appellant would be at liberty to raise all the issues before the Learned DRT. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the Appeal. Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Appeal being Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 408 of 2024 is dismissed. Impugned order dated 09.04.2024 passed by Learned DRT-1 Kolkata in S.A. No. 102 of 2024 is confirmed. However, Appellant would be at liberty to raise all the issues before the Learned DRT as pleaded in the pending S.A. Learned DRT would decide the S.A. on merits after considering the pleadings of the parties and submission

¶35

¶36

made by the Learned Counsel for the parties in accordance with law.

¶37

No Order as to costs.

¶38

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Order pronounced by me in the open Court today i.e. on 11^th December, 2024.

¶42

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶43

Dated: 11^th December, 2024

¶44

8/tp

Smt. Swapna Ghosh v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Swapna Ghosh v. Indian Bank

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

Indian Bank versus Smt Alpana Saha

State Bank of India versus Tadikonda Prabhakar

M/S Karimpur Motors and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Anirban Aditya President of Dum Dum Aditya Educational Society versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Maa Kiran Devi Agro Foods Private Limited Company And Others versus Bank of Baroda

Sukamal Adhikari versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.