Dismissed

Vijay Aero Blocks Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT13 May 2025MISC APPEAL/21/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two miscellaneous appeals challenging DRT orders in a SARFAESI recovery case, the DRAT held that the Tribunal acted correctly given non-compliance of conditions and current dispossession. The appeals were dismissed, directing expedited disposal of the main Securitization Application and maintenance of status quo. No substantive claims were adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Directing DRT to decide SA expeditiously; allowing amendment application; maintaining status quo on property until 31st July or SA disposal.

Vijay Aero Blocks Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Misc. Appeals No. 21 & 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2025

¶5

(Arising out of I.A. 3176 of 2024 & I.A. 3177 of 2024 in S.A. 492 of 2024 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶7

Vijay Aero Blocks Private Limited, represented by N. Prassana Kumar, registered office at 8-2-269/5/63, Plot No. 63, Sagar Society, Road No.2 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034;

¶8

Smt. N. Vijaya Lakshmi, Wife of Sri N S M Prasad, Resident of Flat No.402, Jyoti Spleandor, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 38.

¶9

… Appellants

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Regional Stressed Assets, Recovery Branch (ROSARB), No.3-5-822/5, First Floor, Hyderguda Main Road, Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500 029;

¶12

The Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Khairtabad Branch, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Appellants

¶15

… Mr. Nemani Srinivas Mr. Abhay Singh Mr. Tirthankar Das

¶16

Counsel for Respondents

¶17

… Mr. Dipanjan Datta Ms. Papiya Dutta

¶18

With For Admission

¶19

Misc. Appeal No. 45 of 2025

¶20

(Misc. Appeal Diary No. 453 of 2025)

¶21

(Arising out of I.A. 930 of 2024 in S.A. 492 of 2024 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶22

Vijay Aero Blocks Private Limited, represented by N. Prassana Kumar, registered office at 8-2-269/5/63, Plot No. 63, Sagar Society, Road No.2 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034;

¶23

Smt. N. Vijaya Lakshmi, Wife of Sri N S M Prasad, Resident of Flat No.402, Jyoti Spleandor, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 38.

¶24

… Appellants

¶25

-Versus-

¶26

The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Regional Stressed Assets, Recovery Branch (ROSARB), No.3-5-822/5, First Floor, Hyderguda Main Road, Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500 029;

¶27

The Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Khairtabad Branch, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad.

¶28

¶29

Misc. Appeals No. 21 & 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata ... Respondents

¶30

Counsel for the Appellants … Mr. Nemani Srinivas Mr. Abhay Singh Mr. Tirthankar Das Counsel for Respondents … Mr. Dipanjan Datta Ms. Papiya Dutta JUDGMENT : 13^th May, 2025

¶31

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶32

1. Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2025 has arisen against order dated 28^th December, 2024 passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad in I.A. 3177 of 2024 and I.A. 3176 of 2024 in S.A. 492 of 2024 (Vijay Aero Blocks Private Limited -vsBank of Baroda) whereby Learned DRT passed a conditional order in favour of the Appellants.

¶33

2. Misc. Appeal No. 45 of 2025 (Misc. Appeal Diary No. 453 of 2025) is filed against order dated 11.4.2025 passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad in I.A. 930 of 2025 and I.A. 929 of 2025 in S.A. 492 of 2024 whereby prayer for stay of the proceedings was declined by Learned DRT.

¶34

3. In Misc. Appeal 21 of 2025 pre deposit, as required under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), for an amount of Rs.14.90 crore was deposited by the Appellants. 4. In Misc. Appeal No. 45 of 2025 (Misc. Appeal Diary No. 453 of 2025) an application for waiver, I.A. 262 of 2025 is also filed. Since this appeal also arises in the same pending Securitization Application wherein waiver application was already allowed on 13^th March, 2025. Accordingly, I.A. 262 of 2025 is allowed in Misc. Appeal

¶35

¶36

Misc. Appeals No. 21 & 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Diary No. 453 of 2025. Accordingly, Misc. Appeal Diary No. 453 of 2025 be also registered by providing regular appeal number.

¶37

5. I have heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Nemani Srinivas as well as Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Learned Counsel for Respondent in both the appeals and perused the records.

¶38

6. Since both the appeals have arisen against the order passed in the same S.A., hence are being disposed of simultaneously.

¶39

7. Vide order dated 20^th December, 2024, a conditional order was passed by the Learned DRT which is as under:

¶40

“The issues raised by the Petitioners would be dealt in the course of main SA. However, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the sale proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank against the petition schedule properties under the Auction Sale Notice dt.19.11.2024 and auction to be conducted on 24.12.2024. However, the respondent bank is directed to go ahead with auction but not to confirm the sale in favour of the highest bidder in the auction sale of the petition schedule properties in I.A. 3176/2024 in pursuance of the Auction Sale notice dt.19.11.2024 and auction to be conducted on 24.12.2024 and the respondent bank is also directed not to take physical possession of "B" Schedule property in I.A. 3177/2024 subject to the Petitioner depositing Rs.4.00 Crores in two instalments i.e., first instalment of Rs.2.00 Crores to be deposited on or before 06.01.2025 and second instalment of Rs.2.00 Crores to be deposited on or before 20.01.2025 to the credit of loan account with the Respondent Bank. In the event of failure of compliance of the above conditions by the Petitioner, the interim stay shall stand vacated and the Respondent Bank shall be at liberty to confirm the sale and register the sale certificate in favour of the highest bidder in accordance with law and the said proceedings shall be subject to the result of S.A.”

¶41

8. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2025 is filed on 27^th December, 2024 wherein, as noted above, waiver from making pre deposit was granted to the

¶42

¶43

Misc. Appeals No. 21 & 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Appellant but till 1^st of May, 2025 no interim protection was directed in favour of the Appellants. However, it was ordered on 13^th March, 2025 that the sale process may continue but the same shall not be confirmed without the leave of this Tribunal.

¶44

9. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that pending appeal, the Appellants were dispossessed from the secured assets by the Bank on 25^th April, 2025. Although an application for stay of the proceedings, pursuant to the order of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, was filed by the Appellants which was declined by the Learned DRT vide order dated 11.4.2025 on the ground that appeal against order dated 28^th December, 2024 is pending before DRAT. At this juncture, it is relevant to observe that the possession of the Schedule B property was taken by the Secured Creditor on 25^th April, 2025 while the Auction Sale Notice was issued against Schedule A property could not be fructified as auction could not be conducted for want of bidders. 10. As far as both the impugned orders are concerned, in the order dated 20^th December, 2024, Learned DRT passed the order in favour of the Appellants imposing certain conditions. Learned DRT also recorded the reasons for passing the order. Likewise, in the order dated 11^th April, 2025 stay of the proceedings were not granted as the order dated 20^th December, 2024 is subjudice before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶45

¶46

Misc. Appeals No. 21 & 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶47

11. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that Learned DRT has erred in imposing the conditions which are stringent in nature. It is further submitted that Learned DRT has not considered the factum of deposit of Rs.14.90 crore by the Appellants.

¶48

12. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank would submit that the Learned DRT has passed an order after recording its reasons as to why the, conditions are being imposed and the Learned DRT also passed an order that even if the conditions are complied with, sale should not be confirmed.

¶49

13. All the proceedings were also directed to be subject of the S.A.

¶50

14. It is further submitted by the Bank that the order dated 11.4.2025 was passed as the first conditional order of deposit was not complied by the Appellants.

¶51

15. Having considered the submission and perusal of the records, I find that the order dated 20^th December, 2024 was passed by the Learned DRT at an interim stage wherein the Bank was permitted to conduct the auction but not to confirm the sale subject to depositing the amount of Rs.4.00 crore in two instalments. Bank was also directed not to take possession if the conditions are complied with. Admittedly, the conditions imposed could not be complied by the Appellants. Thereafter, possession was taken by the Secured Creditor. Likewise, in the order dated 11.4.2025 since the appeal was pending against the order dated 20^th December, 2024 and conditions were imposed therein

¶52

¶53

Misc. Appeals No. 21 & 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata were not complied, no interim protection was granted. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. However, since Appellants have deposited an amount of Rs.14.90 crore and possession of the Schedule B property is taken by the Secured Creditor, it would be appropriate that Learned DRT should dispose of the Securitization Application expeditiously.

¶54

16. However, at this stage, Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that he has to move an amendment application for relief of re-possession of the Schedule B property.

¶55

17. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of with the following terms:

¶56

(a) Appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Learned DRT to decide the S.A. expeditiously.

¶57

(b) Appellants may file the application for amendment within a period of two weeks from today with copy to the Bank who may file opposition, if any, within a week thereafter.

¶58

(c) Learned DRT should make endeavour to dispose of the amendment application without any delay. After amendment is carried out, Secured Creditor Bank may file opposition to Section 17 Application within two weeks. Thereafter, Learned DRT should dispose of the Securitization Application expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the reply by the

¶59

¶60

Misc. Appeals No. 21 & 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Bank after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.

¶61

(d) Since possession has already been taken by the Bank, parties shall maintain status quo by not creating a third party interest till 31^st July, 2025 or the disposal of the Securitization Application

¶62

whichever is earlier. However, if the S.A. could not be disposed of for the reasons attributable to the Securitization Applicant, Learned DRT would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders even after 31^st July, 2025.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

Order pronounced by me in the open Court.

¶66

Copy of the order be retained in the records of Misc. Appeal No. 45 of 2025.

¶67

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶68

Dated: 13^th May, 2025 05/01/ac

Vijay Aero Blocks Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Aero Blocks Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

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

M S Radient Bastralaya versus Uco Bank

Sri Suman Bhattacharya and Anr. versus Indian Bank

Bhagabati Ojha versus Central Bank of India

Cholamandalam Investment versus Bidyaraj Jena

Vijay Aero Blocks Pvt. Limited versus Bank of Baroda

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sai Ram Travels