Disposed

Madhabi Das v. Punjab National Bank

DRAT3 Apr 2025MISC APPEAL/78/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal disposed of a miscellaneous appeal arising from the refusal of an interim stay. It directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the pending securitization application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the pending security application no. 249 of 2022 within one month.

Madhabi Das versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Misc. Appl. No. 78 of 2024

¶4

(Arising out of I.A. 2770 of 2024 in S.A. 249 of 2022 in DRT-III Kolkata)

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶6

03.04.2025

¶7

Madhabi Das residing at R/O 2333, ward no 10, Pioneer Park, Amtala, PO Noapara, PS Barasat, Dist. 24 Paraganas (N) 700124

¶8

2.TARUN KANTI DAS residing at R/O 2333, WARD NO 10, PIONEER PARK, AMTALA, OPP R.K MANUFACTURING JEWELLERY SHOP. P.ONOAPARA, BARASAT

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

--Vs--

¶11

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK having office at North Oriental Bank House, DD 11 Sector I 4th floor, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700064

¶12

2.AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK residing at SASTRA DIVISION, KOLKATA NORTH, ORIENTAL BANK HOUSE, DD-11, SECTOR-1, 4TH FLOOR, SALT LAKE

¶13

3.SANJOY DUTTA residing at MURALI BAMANGACHI, NORTH 24 PGS, BAMUNGACHI, 743248.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellant : Mr. Memani Srinivas, ld. adv. Ms. Mitul Chakraborty, ld. adv. For Respondent : Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, ld. adv. for bank

¶16

Mr. Prasenjit Pal, ld. adv. for resp. no. 3.

¶17

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned

¶19

counsel for the respondent bank and auction purchaser and perused the records.

¶20

¶21

Instant Misc. appeal has arisen against an order dated

¶22

22.07.2024 passed by learned DRT-IIIKolkata in I.A. No. 2770 of 2024 in S.A. 249 of 2022 (Smt. Mdhabi Das Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors) whereby interim prayer for stay was refused.

¶23

Securitization application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 filed seeking relief to quash the notice dated 16.07.2024 issued by the bank in furtherance of the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by learned District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas. Learned DRT has recorded a finding that SARFAESI applicant has not challenged the order of the District Magistrate dated 26.12.2023. Hence, no question of staying the operation of the order dated 26.12.2023 arises. Accordingly, impugned order was passed.

¶24

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that securitization application is pending before the DRT wherein pleadings are complete. Learned counsel for the bank as well as learned counsel for the auction purchaser have also submitted that pleadings are complete.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that learned DRT be directed to decide the S.A. expeditiously preferably within a month. Learned counsel for the bank as well

¶26

¶27

as learned counsel for the auction purchaser submit that bank

¶28

has already moved an application for expeditious hearing.

¶29

As far as merits of the matter are concerned, order dated 26.12.2023 passed by learned District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas is not under challenge. Simply a letter communicated by the bank for handing over possession was challenged. I do

¶30

not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. However, as regards the submission made by the learned counsel

¶31

for appellant for expeditious disposal of the S.A., it would be imperative in the interest of justice that learned DRT shoulddecide the pending S.A. no. 249 of 2022 within one month

¶32

from today after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Appeal stands disposed of.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 2024 is disposed of with the direction

¶35

that learned DRT should decide the S.A. 249 of 2022 within a month from today. If any adjournment is sought by the learned counsel for the parties, learned DRT would be at liberty to grant

¶36

or refuse the same as per its own roster. Costs easy.

¶37

File be consigned to record room.

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3^rd day of April, 2025.

¶41

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶42

Dated : 03.04.2025 07/pkb

Madhabi Das v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhabi Das v. Punjab National 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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Ms Topline Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. versus Linaj Addhya

Kripa Realtors LLP versus Mrityunjay Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank Of India versus K S Bhagwan Prop Ms K Venkannah and Ors.

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company versus Indo Wagon Engineering Limited

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited versus Rajeev Jhunjhunwala