Dismissed

Victory Iron Works Limited v. Canara Bank

DRAT23 Sept 2024REGULAR APPEAL/124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellate Tribunal dismissed appeal against DRT-I Kolkata interim order in banking recovery case. Tribunal modified order granting liberty to respond to show cause notice while upholding direction on notifying alienees. Directed DRT to expedite OA filed since 2005.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; liberty granted to file response to show cause within four weeks; OA directed to be decided expeditiously.

Victory Iron Works Limited versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

¶2

Reportable / Non-reportable

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

¶4

APPEAL 124 OF 2022

¶5

(Arising out of IA 2449 of 2021 in O.A. No. 38 of 2005 – DRT-I Kolkata)

¶6

23.09.2024

¶7

Victory Iron Works Ltd., having registered office at P-26, Benaras Road, Howrah – 711106.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

--Vs--

¶10

Canara Bank carrying on business at 25, Princep Street, PS Hare Street, Kolkata – 700072.

¶11

...... Respondent.

¶12

Victory Castings Ltd., registered office at 8, HO Chi Minh Sarani, Suit No. 26, 2^nd floor, PS Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071.

¶13

Satish Kumar Jhunjhunwala.

¶14

Saroj Kumra Jhunjhunwala.

¶15

Both residing at No. 6, Lee Road, PS Bhowanipur, Kolkata – 700020.

¶16

... Proforma Respondents

¶17

For Appellant : Mr. Rohit Das, ld. Adv. Mr. D. Basu Roy, ld. Adv. Ms. S. Basu, ld. Adv.

¶18

For Respondent: Mr. Ravikiran Singh, ld. Adv.

¶19

The Appellate Tribunal

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶21

Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated

¶22

21.12.2021 passed by learned DRT-I Kolkata in I.A. No. 2449 of

¶23

¶24

2021 arising out of O.A. No. 38 of 2005 (Canara Bank Vs. Victory Castings LMT & Ors.).

¶25

Bare perusal of the impugned order will show that an O.A. was filed in the year 2005 for issuing recovery certificate to the tune of Rs.8,31,06,133/-. Thereafter, due to one or the other grounds O.A. was kept pending. In the meantime, an order dated 02.08.2019 was passed by the learned DRT directing Defendant no.4, who is appellant herein, to deposit the title deed. This order was challenged by filing Misc. Appeal Dy No. 145 of 2023 along with I.A. No. 93 of 2023 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act before this Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed on 09.02.2024 holding that Section 5 application lacks merit. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed wherein the Registrar of DRT-I Kolkata was directed to issue show cause notice to Defendant No.4 as to why an appropriate order be not passed against him for defying Tribunal’s order dated 02.08.2019. Further direction was also issued to the Defendant no.4 to intimate the persons, in whose favour property was alienated, not to create any further third-party charge till disposal of the I.A. without leave of the Tribunal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since this order is under challenge till date no reply to the show cause was given by the appellant, although all the facts are on record of the learned DRT.

¶27

¶28

As far as impugned order is concerned, there are two-fold directions. Firstly, as far as issuance of show cause notice is concerned no final order was passed by the learned DRT. It can only be looked into after the appellant submits any reply to the show cause and learned DRT considers the same and pass appropriate order. Hence, appellant is given liberty to file response to the show cause notice as per order of the learned DRT dated 21.12.2021 within four weeks from today.

¶29

It is made clear that since the appellant is in the knowledge of the show cause, learned DRT is not required to issue any formal notice. This order itself shall be treated to be a notice to the appellant.

¶30

As far as other part of the order regarding intimating to the person in whose favour charge was alienated, appellant to communicate or intimate the person in whose favour property has been alienated. That portion of the order does not in any manner affect the legal right of the appellant. Hence, that order does not suffer any illegality or irregularity. Accordingly, that portion of the order is upheld.

¶31

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal, which is liable to be dismissed subject to the modification made in the body of the judgement.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Appeal is dismissed with the modification made in the body of the judgement.

¶34

¶35

Since the O.A. was filed in the year 2005, learned DRT-I Kolkata is hereby directed to decide the O.A. as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties as per their own roster. In case any adjournment is sought and learned DRT is of the view that adjournment is to be granted, a reasoned order should be passed. Parties are directed to appear before learned DRT-I Kolkata on 05.11.2024.

¶36

File be consigned to record room.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23^rd day of September, 2024.

¶40

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶41

Dated : 23.09.2024 10 /pkb

Victory Iron Works Limited v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Victory Iron Works Limited v. Canara 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Patibandla Harshini versus Bank Of Baroda and Ors.

M S Purno Gouri Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Ms. Eesavyasa Technologies Pvt. Ltd. versus K Vijayanada Reddy and Ors.

Sri Kalyana Chakravarthy Rice Mill and others versus State Bank of India

Sannareddy Nandagopal Reddy versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S Mithra Fluidtrans Private Limited