Allowed

Ambattur Tapstia Engineering Consortium P Ltd. v. Indian Bank

DRAT12 Feb 2025TRANSFER PETITION/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debtor appealed a transfer application filed by a bank under the Debt Recovery Tribunals. The tribunal ordered a transfer of a related security application from DRT-II to DRT-III due to a vacancy in the latter. It directed continuation of an interim stay order until the next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of SA 335/2023 from DRT-II, Chennai to DRT-III, Chennai to be tried along with SA 641/2024; interim order continued till 6.3.2025.

Ambattur Tapstia Engineering Consortium P Ltd. versus Indian… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 12^th day of February, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

T.P.No.1/2025

¶6

(a rising out of SA 641/2024 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

Mrs. Ambattur Tapstia Engineering Consortium P Ltd. Rep. by its Director Mr. Subburaman No.203, New Tiny Sector, Park Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.

¶9

…..Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Stressed Asset Management Branch, No.55, Wellington Estate, 2^nd Floor, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶12

…..Respondent Bank

¶13

Counsel for Appellant : Shri A . Periasamy Counsel for respondent bank : Shri C. Ramaiah

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Transfer Application is filed under Section 17(A) (2) of the RDB Act R/w Section 18(2) of SARFAESI Act seeking transfer of SA No.641/2024 pending on the file of DRT-III, Chennai to DRT-II, Chennai to try along with SA 335/2023 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai.

¶16

¶17

It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that SA 641/2021 was filed challenging Section 14 Order and SA 335/2023 was filed challenging the sale. It is submitted that both SAs have arisen out of the same loan transaction and parties are also same. Therefore, both should be tried together for avoiding conflicting orders.

¶18

In reply to this submission, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that there is yet another SA 108/2023 pending on the file of DRT-III, Chennai challenging the earlier Sale Notice, to which, Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that as no sale took place in pursuance of the said sale notice, that SA 108/2023 would be dismissed as infructuous, therefore, it is not necessary to tag that SA along with aforesaid SAs.

¶19

Ld. Counsel for applicant further submitted that in IA 132/2025 in SA No.335/2023, interim order was granted on 30.1.2025 and when it was taken up on 5.2.2025, interim order was not extended as an undertaking was given by Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent bank that bank will not proceed till 12.2.2025. Although Ld. Counsel for respondent bank conceded to the said fact, but submitted that the interim order granted in SA 641/2024 has been recalled and when that was brought to the notice of Ld. Presiding Officer, Ld. Presiding Officer has not extended the stay order granted in SA 335/2023.

¶20

Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides.

¶21

In view of the reasons stated by Ld. Counsel for parties and as there is no Presiding Officer in DRT-II, Chennai, this Tribunal directs Registry of DRTII, Chennai to transfer SA No.335/2023 pending on the file of DRT-II, Chennai to DRT-III, Chennai to try along with SA 641/2024 pending on the file of DRT-III, Chennai by 24.2.2025.

¶22

¶23

Both parties are directed to appear before DRT-III, Chennai on 6.3.2025, the next hearing date of SA 641/2024. Interim order granted in IA 132/2025 in SA 335/2023 on 30.1.2025 is ordered to be continued till 6.3.2025. Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai is also directed to consider whether to extend the interim order already granted or not after hearing both sides.

¶24