Dismissed

Kanta Shah v. a P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

DRAT15 May 2025MISC APPEAL/41/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The court held that since possession was previously taken with proper demarcation by revenue officials, no further commission was needed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order admitting further grounds and rejecting the Advocate Commissioner appointment was confirmed.

Kanta Shah versus a P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 41 of 2024

¶4

(Arising out of I.A. 989 of 2018 in S.A. 115 of 2013 in DRT-1, Hyderabad) Order No. 12 15.05.2025

¶5

Kanta Shah , wife of Chunilal M. Shah residing at premises/House No. 4-2-1069/G4A, Ram Koti, Hyderabad.

¶6

...Appellant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

The A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., represented by its Authorized Officer 5-3-989, 3^rd Floor, Sherza Estate, N.S. Road, Hyderabad-500095.

¶9

O. Muralikrishna, son of Ramaiah, resident of House No. 15-6-171/A, Begumbazar, Hyderabad.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Ld. Counsel Mr. Tirthankar Das, Ld. Counsel

¶12

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, Ld. Counsel Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury, Ld. Counsel

¶13

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶14

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

¶15

The instant appeal has arisen against an order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad in S.A. No. 115 of 2013 (Smt. Kanta Shah vs. A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. & Anr.).

¶16

It appears that I.A. 988 of 2018 for filing of the additional documents by the securitization applicant was allowed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal. I.A. 989 of 2018 was also filed by the appellant, who is securitization applicant, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the identity of plot nos. C-29 and 30, which

¶17

¶18

was declined by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved by the order, appellant preferred the appeal.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that identity of the plot has to be fixed because this is not the same property or plot, which was allegedly a secured asset. It can only be ascertained by making a physical inspection by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶20

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank would submit that possession was taken on 24.01.2013 through the Advocate Commissioner in presence of revenue officials. It is further submitted that at that time relevant memos were prepared on the basis of the revenue records. Accordingly, now, there is no requirement or need for appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

¶21

Learned Debt Recovery Tribunal recorded a finding that since possession was taken on 24.01.2013 by the Advocate Commissioner in presence of the revenue officials after proper demarcation of the secured assets, there is no requirement for appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

¶22

Bare perusal of the impugned order and the records would reveal that possession was taken by the Bank on 24.01.2013 in presence of revenue officials after proper demarcation of the secured assets.

¶23

Appellant is the securitization applicant, who has been permitted by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal to file the documents in support of his case. Necessary memos were also prepared at the time of taking over possession. Accordingly, the appellant can now not be permitted to gain allow for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Impugned order is confirmed.

¶26

It is expected that learned Debt Recovery Tribunal shall decide S.A. 115 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of the order is placed before it, since the same is pending for the last about 12 years.

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

Copy of the judgment/final order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶30

File be consigned to Record room.

¶31

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in open Court.

¶32

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶33

Dated: 15^th May, 2025 12//mb

Kanta Shah v. a P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanta Shah v. a P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus M S Annapurna Oil and Mineral

Hdfc Bank versus M S North East Glass Industries

Indusind Bank Limited versus Manohara Greens Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels versus State Bank of India

Jasmine Industries versus Union Bank of India