The DRT dismissed an appeal challenging an interim order at the admission stage. The court noted the appellant failed to deposit the required amount under the interim order and did not file a representation against the Section 13(2) notice, making a challenge premature.
The miscellaneous appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Misc. Appeal Dy No. 37 of 2024 (Arising out of IA 3494 of 2023 in SA 480 of 2023 DRT- II Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
24.01.2024
2.MRS INDRADEVI CHOUDHARY residing at PLOT NO. 3/4, BESIDE ANDHRA BANK, GANDIMAISAMMA, RANGAREDDI , TELENGANA
3.M/S MAHALAXMI ELECTRICAL residing at PLOT NO. 14B, SHOP NO. 6 , AMRUTHA SANGARAM APTS, IDA, K.V. RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA,
... Appellants
--Vs--
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd having office at Plot No 3 by 4 beside Andhra Bank Gandimaisamma
Respondent.
For Appellant : Md. Masundur Rahaman. , ld. Adv. For Respondent :
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
Appellant has challenged the order dated 24.11.2023 wherein learned DRT has granted interim relief in favour of the appellant on condition that taking physical possession shall remain stayed subject to deposit of Rs.59.50 lakh in three instalments, failing which respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against the property as per law.
2
Notice issued u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 shows that Rs.1,98,44,044/- is the demanded due. No representation u/s 13(3A) was filed by the appellant. Appellant has failed to deposit the amount as per interim order passed by the DRT. Thereafter, respondent financial institution obtained order u/s 14 of the Act. Appellant has challenged the order before learned DRT wherein interim order was passed in favour of the appellant. As far as demanded due is concerned since no representation was made against Sec. 13(2) notice and notice u/s 13(4) of the Act was issued and learned DRT has granted interim relief in favour of the appellant, there is no ground either to challenge the impugned order, which will be considered by the DRT at the time of disposal of the S.A., or to file appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order.
I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Pending I.A.s are also dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
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.
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of January, 2024.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson
Dated : 24.01.2024 03 /pkb
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present appeal challenging the interim order of the DRT can be considered at the admission stage.
Whether the appellant filed a representation under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Tararam Choudhary and others
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
