Allowed

Bank Of Baroda v. Waheeda Sultana

DRAT13 Jan 2025REGULAR APPEAL/305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by Bank of Baroda, setting aside the judgment of the DRT. Matters were remanded to the DRT to decide the SARFAESI application and appeal afresh after hearing parties, noting reliance on a parallel remitted O.A. proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of DRT set aside; matter remanded to DRT to decide SARFAESI application and associated appeal afresh after affording hearing.

Bank Of Baroda versus Waheeda Sultana — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 305 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

Appeal No. 305 of 2018

¶6

(Arising out of S.A. 13 of 2007 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶7

Bank of Baroda, Asset Recovery Management Branch, No. 103 & 104, 1^st Floor, Babukhan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500 001, Telangana.

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

Waheeda Sultana, Wife of Late Mir Sadiq Hussain, H. No. 16-2-741/B/7, Asmangarh, Malakpet, Hyderabad;

¶11

Mr. Wajid Hussain, son of Late Mir Sadiq Hussain, 6-3-675, Somajiguda, Hyderabad;

¶12

Mr. Syed Raheem, S/o Syed Suban, C/o Wajid Hussain, 6-3-675, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Appellants … Mr. Avishek Guha Ms. Ritika Pal Counsel for Respondent s … None JUDGMENT : 13^th January, 2025

¶15

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶16

1. Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 3^rd July, 2018, passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad, in S.A. 13 of 2007 (Waheeda Sultana -vs- Vijaya Bank & Others). Learned DRT allowed the S.A., filed by Appellant.

¶17

2. I have heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant. Despite service and granting sufficient time, none appears for the Respondents to argue the matter.

¶18

3. Feeling aggrieved, Appellant Bank preferred the appeal.

¶19

4. SARFAESI Application is filed by the Applicant, Respondents No. 1 herein, challenging the action initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on the basis of loan sanctioned by the Bank to the Respondents wherein necessary documents were duly executed.

¶20

¶21

Appeal No. 305 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata Respondent No. 3 is a Guarantor while Respondents No. 1 and 2 are Borrowers and Guarantors. Necessary documents were duly executed. Payment of loan amount became irregular hence loan account was classified as N.P.A. Thereafter, Bank also filed an O.A. for issuance of a certificate against the Defendants. S.A. was filed on receiving legal notice of Bank on 25.01.2007 wherein it is challenged that the SARFAESI Applicant, i.e. Defendant No. 1, is the original owner of the subject property. She never approached by the Bank either for sanction of loan or creating mortgage over the subject property. No response was made by the Bank. The loan transaction was fraudulent as signatures on the loan documents were not made by the Respondent No. 1. Photograph of Defendant No. 1 on the loan documents is also different.

¶22

5. Appellant Bank contested the S.A. and submitted that the proceedings were not in accordance with law. The Securitisation Application was filed after classification of the loan account as N.P.A.

¶23

6. Learned DRT framed following two issues:

¶24

(1) Whether the Appellant has made out any valid grounds for setting aside the measures taken out by the 1^st Respondent Bank against the subject property and to restore the possession of the subject property to the Applicant?

¶25

(2) To what relief?

¶26

7. It is recorded by the Learned DRT that since the claim of the Bank has already been rejected in O.A. 45 of 2007 on 19.6.2018, accordingly, S.A. is liable to be allowed.

¶27

8. As far as finding recorded by the Learned DRT is concerned, in the Appeal No. 285 of 2018, which was filed against the judgment and order dated 19^th June, 2018, passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad, in O.A. 45 of 2007 (Vijaya Bank -vs- Waheeda Sultana & Others), the matter has already been remitted to Learned DRT for deciding afresh. In this matter also since judgment is based on the judgment of the O.A. proceedings challenged before the Learned DRT, I find it

¶28

¶29

Appeal No. 305 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata

¶30

appropriate to remand this matter to Learned DRT to decide afresh along with O.A. 45 of 2007.

¶31

9. Accordingly, appeal is liable to be allowed and the matter is liable to be remanded to DRT for deciding afresh.

¶32

O R D E R E D

¶33

Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 3^rd July, 2018, passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad, in S.A. 13 of 2007 (Waheeda Sultana -vs- Vijaya Bank & Others), is set aside. Learned DRT should decide the S.A. afresh, along with O.A. 45 of 2007, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents

¶36

and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶37

File be consigned to Record room.

¶38

Order pronounced in open Court.

¶39

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶40

Dated: 13^th January, 2025 14/ac

Bank Of Baroda v. Waheeda Sultana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank Of Baroda v. Waheeda Sultana

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

H.M Construction versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus Vasantha Surgical Equipments

Ms Classic Chemicals Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Bank Of Baroda versus Waheda Sultana

Pabitra Pran Saikia versus Union Bank of India

K Premsagar Rao versus Gollamudi Krishna Mohan