Allowed

Indusind Bank Limited v. Manohara Greens Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT14 May 2025REGULAR APPEAL/119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal filed by Indusind Bank challenging a lower court judgment that rejected the Bank's securitization application. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the DRT to decide afresh after the Bank submitted additional evidence regarding notice service.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment allowing the securitization application is set aside. The matter is remanded to the DRT, Visakhapatnam, to decide afresh after the Bank files additional evidence.

Indusind Bank Limited versus Manohara Greens Logistics Pvt… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 119 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 119 of 2023

¶5

(Arising out of S.A. 79 of 2023 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

CHAIRPERSON

¶8

The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank (6213), Rajahmundry Branch, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh; 2^nd Floor. Nayapafivari Veedhi, Opp. Vamsi Krishna Children Hospital, T. Nagar, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. - 533 101;

¶9

The Authorised Officer, Indusind Bank (6213), Rajahmundry Branch, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh; 2^nd Floor. Nayapafivari Veedhi, Opp. Vamsi Krishna Children Hospital, T. Nagar, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. - 533 101.

¶10

… Appellants

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

Manohara Greens Logistics Private Limited, Represented by it's Managing Director, Mr. Veerapaneni Ravikanth, having it's Registered Office at D. No. 68-5-1/1, Gadhi Puam-4, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. - 533 101;

¶13

Mr. Pidikoti Naresh Kumar, Son of Nageswara Rao, D.No. 8-27C, Gonepalli, Brahmnapalli, Giddaluru, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. - 533 101;

¶14

Smt. Veerapaneni Sudha Rani, Wife of Ravikant, D.No. 68-5-1/1, Gadhi Puam-4, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. - 533 101;

¶15

Smt. Veerapaneni Bhagya Laksmhmi, Wife of Late Sivaji, D.No. 68-5- 1/1, Gadhi Puam-4, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. - 533 101;

¶16

Sri Veerapaneni Rama Krishna, son of Late Sivaji, D. No. 68-5-1/1, Gadhi Puam-4, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. - 533 101;

¶17

Sri Veerapaneni Ravikanth, son of Late Sivaji, D.No. 68-5-1/1, Gadhi Puam-4, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. - 533 101.

¶18

		… Respondents
Counsel for Appellant	…	Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly Ms. Benjir Khan Ms. Chaitali Acharjee
Counsel for Respondents	…	Mr. Debashis Karmakar Mr. T.V. Narasimham

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Appeal No. 119 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata : 14^th May, 2025

¶22

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶23

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

2. Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 18^th August, 2023, passed by Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam, in S.A. 79 of 2023 (Manohara Greens Logistics Private Limited & Others -vs- The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank) whereby Securitisation Application filed by the Respondents was allowed.

¶25

3. As far as facts of the matter are concerned, the Respondents have availed Credit Facilities from the Appellant. Account became irregular and was classified as N.P.A. on 1.3.2021. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued on 18.8.2022. Some efforts were made for settlement. Thereafter it is stated that notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act was not served upon the Respondents herein. Notice was published on 13.1.2023 which is against the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Secured assets were agricultural land wherein Securitisation proceedings could not be drawn up by the Bank. There are inherent defaults in the notices under Section 8 (6) and 9 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). Accordingly, Securitisation Application was filed by the Respondents herein wherein Appellant Bank herein submitted that all the actions were taken in accordance with law. Notices under Section 13 (2) and 13

¶26

¶27

Appeal No. 119 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata (4) of the Act were duly issued and published and served. Notices under Rule 8 (6) and 9 (1) of the Rules were duly served and published and action was taken in accordance with law.

¶28

4. Learned DRT after considering the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records arrived at a finding that notices under Section 13 (2) of the Act was served but as far as notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act is concerned, Bank failed to prove service of Possession Notice upon the Appellants. Further Appellants also acted in violation of Rule 8 (5) of the Rules. The secured asset is agricultural land.

¶29

5. At the very outset, it is to be observed that in the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed by the Appellant wherein document filed by the Bank which relates to service of Notice under Section 3 (4) coupled with valuation as well as on the subject the secured assets are not agricultural land. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was allowed vide order dated 18.3.2025.

¶30

6. Learned DRT has allowed the Securitization Application on certain grounds which were challenged in the appeal. Appellants herein have filed the additional documents and evidence in the appeal which requires appreciation by the DRT. All the documents filed by the Bank goes to the root of the matter. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the matter should be remanded to the Learned DRT to decide afresh after considering the evidence filed by the Bank. Accordingly, appeal deserved to be allowed.

¶31

¶32

Appeal No. 119 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18^th August, 2023, passed by Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam, in S.A. 79 of 2023 (Manohara Greens Logistics Private Limited & Others -vs- The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank), is set aside.

¶35

Matter is remanded to DRT, Visakhapatnam for deciding the matter afresh after considering the evidence filed by the Bank in the appeal. Learned DRT will also accordan opportunity to the Securitization Applicants to file evidence in rebuttal. Learned DRT shall decide the Securitization Application after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. Parties are at liberty to raise all the pleas in the pending application.

¶36

No order as to costs.

¶37

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

¶38

File be consigned to Record room.

¶39

Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.

¶40

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶41

Dated: 14^th May, 2025 16/ac

Indusind Bank Limited v. Manohara Greens Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Limited v. Manohara Greens Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

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

Vijay Aero Blocks Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Cholamandalam Investment versus Bidyaraj Jena

Vijay Aero Blocks Pvt. Limited versus Bank of Baroda

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus M S Annapurna Oil and Mineral

Hdfc Bank versus M S North East Glass Industries

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.