Allowed

State Bank of India v. M S Karimpur Motor

DRAT23 Aug 2024REGULAR APPEAL/43/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant bank challenged an observation by the DRT stating the bank violated SARFAESI Act procedures before the main appeal was decided. JT held the DRT exceeded jurisdiction and quashed the observation, directing the DRT to decide the matter expeditiously after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the observation by the learned DRT that bank has not followed due procedure under SARFAESI Act is set aside. DRT to decide the matter after hearing parties.

State Bank of India versus M S Karimpur Motor — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

¶2

REPORTABLE / NOT REPORTABLE

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appl. No. 43 of 2022

¶5

(Arising out of I.A. 1020/2022 in S.A. 325 of 2022 in DRT-II Kolkata)

¶6

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶7

23.08.2024

¶8

Authorised Officer, STATE BANK OF INDIA SARB, (05171)Kolkata having office At 2/1 Russel Street Kankaria Centre, 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700071.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

--Vs--

¶11

M/S Karimpur Motor

¶12

2.Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwala

¶13

3.Mr Rajendra Kumar Agarwala

¶14

4.Srimati Late Agarwala

¶15

5.Srimati Anamika Agarwala

¶16

All Residing At Vill. & P.O. Karimpur, Dist. Nadia, P.S. Karimpur, West Bangal-741152

¶17

5A. Shri Akash Rungta, residing at Anandapally, Karimpur, Nadia, West Bengal, PIN 741152.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

6.District Magistrate , Nadia, Office Of The District Magistrate, Munshikhana, Krishnanagar, Nadia

¶20

Proforma Respondent

¶21

For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mukherjee, ld. adv.

¶22

For Respondent : Mr. Joy Saha, ld. Senior Counsel.

¶23

Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, ld. adv. Mr. Nimish Mishra, ld. adv.

¶24

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶26

records.

¶27

¶28

Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated

¶29

11.07.2022 passed by learned DRT-II Kolkata in I.A. No. 1020 of

¶30

2022 in S.A. No. 325 of 2022 (M/s Karimpore Motor &Ors. Vs. Authorised Officer, State Bank of India&Anr).

¶31

Learned DRT while disposing of the I.A. 1020 of 2022 recorded its own opinion that bank has not followed the due procedure of law as provided under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder. Thereafter, I.A. 2020 of 2022 was posted for final hearing on a subsequent date.

¶32

At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant bank

¶33

would submit that bank is only aggrieved by the observation made by the learned DRT on the issue that bank has not followed

¶34

the due procedure law as provided underthe SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder. It is submitted that this observation is

¶35

made at the time of hearing of the I.A. while the S.A. is still pending. All the issues raised by the SARFAESI applicantshave to

¶36

be heard and decided by the learned DRT after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and

¶39

submits that learned DRT has made the observation in the

¶40

impugned order after going through the records.

¶41

Having considered the submissions made by the parties, I

¶42

am of the considered view that learned DRT has exceeded its jurisdiction in recording the observation that due procedure of law

¶43

as provided under SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder

¶44

has not followed by the bank while the S.A. is still pending. An

¶45

order should always be a reasoned order because any judicial

¶46

order is subject to judicial scrutiny.

¶47

S.A. 325 of 2022 is pending on the date of passing the

¶48

impugned order dated 11.07.2022. All the issues raised by the SARFAESI applicants have to be decided by the learned DRT after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly, I am

¶49

of the considered view that the observation of the learned DRT

¶50

that due procedure of law as provides under SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunderhave not followed by the bank is uncalled

¶51

for, unwarranted and against the law at this stage. Accordingly,

¶52

to this extent appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶53

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

Appeal is allowed. Observation made by the learned DRT in

¶56

the impugned order that bank has not followed due procedure of

¶57

law as provides under the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder is set aside. However, learned DRT would be at liberty to arrive at its own finding in the pending S.A. after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Learned DRT is

¶58

expected to decide the matter expeditiously.

¶59

File be consigned to record room.

¶60

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT. Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶61

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

¶62

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶63

Dated : 23.08.2024 /pkb

¶64

State Bank of India v. M S Karimpur Motor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M S Karimpur Motor

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

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

Rajpurohith Praveen versus Indian Overseas Bank

Kalyan Educational Society versus Punjb National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Vanaparthi Venkata Naga Mani Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus Spandana Sphooty Financial Limited and Others

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Only Wheel