Dismissed

Mr Satpal Singh v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

DRT11 Oct 2022SA/447/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Special Application filed by a borrower against a bank. The court held that no relief could be granted as the applicant failed to seek specific reliefs in the prayer clause, citing settled Supreme Court law. Additionally, the bank had duly served the demand notice, and the applicant did not raise objections or pay dues as required under Section 13(3A) of t

What did the court decide?

The Special Application was dismissed being devoid of merits and substance.

Mr Satpal Singh versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer

¶3

Date of order I I -10-2022

¶4

S.A. No.447 of 2022

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Counsel for the applicant Mrs.Poo.ia Tandon Counsel for the bank Mr.S.M.Furqan

¶7

Final arguments were heard on 2l-09-22 and case was reserved for pronouncement of orders.

¶8

The applicant has filed the present SA on 23-06-22 prayingto set aside the entire securitisation proceedings and to restrain the bank from order dtd.30-05-22 and has further prayed to direct the bank not to do any act to furtherance of demand notice till final disposed of the application.

¶9

The case ofthe applicant, in brief, is that he had availed certain credit facility from the bank and without any information had classified the account as NPA. That demand notice has been issued under Ordnance rather issuing under the Act and that no possession notice was served on the applicant. That possession notice was neither affixed on subject property nor published in two newspapers. That he had deposited considerable amount in the loan account with the bank to save his asset and reputation and that bank is charging high rate of interest.

¶10

Bank had filed preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the SA wherein it is stated that challange to demand notice and possession notice is barred by limitation and that no specific relief has been sought by the applicant. That demand notice was duly served on applicant however no objection was raised against the same and applicant also did not paid the dues of the bank. That possession notice dtd.02-11-19 was duly served on applicant and also affixed on subject property and published in two newspapers. That applicant has not brought any of the lacunas or noncompliance in the order dtd.30-05-22 passed by ADM, Ghaziabad. That there is no illegality in the action of the bank and all mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act have been duly complied with by the bank.

¶11

Duly considered submissions and perused the records. Perusal of prayer clause reveals that applicant has prayed to set aside the entire securitisation proceedings and to restrain the bank from order dtd.30-05-22.

¶12

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors. vide their^judgment dtd.04-11-2009, in Paru14 has held as under:- | .

¶13

"Para¹⁴ - The approach of the High Court in granting relief not prayed for cannot be approved by this Court.,, It is further held that "whenever the petitioner is entitled or is claiming more than one relief, he must pray for all the reliefs." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that "normally the court will grant only those reliefs specifically prayed by the petitioner."

¶14

In the case of Om Prakash Vs. Ram Kumar 0991) 1 SCC 441. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "A party cannot be granted a relief which is not claimed, if the circumstances of the cases are such that the granting of such relief would result in serious prejudice to the interested party and deprive him of the valuable rights under the statute.,,

¶15

A similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Priya Ganguly Vs. University of Lucknow wherein it was observed that "a party cannot be granted a relief which is not claimed.,'

¶16

In the present case, it is apparent that applicants have not sought any specific relief and therefore in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, no relief can be granted to them with regard to prayer as sought in the SA.

¶17

Even otherwise on merits also, perusal of Annex.R-l reveals that demand notice dtd.0l-08-19 (Page 8 & 9) was sent to applicant vide postal receipt dtd.07-08-19 (Page l0). Despite service ofdemand notice, applicant has neither paid the dues ofthe bank nor raised any objection as required u/s l3(3A) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore there is no illegality in the action of the bank with regard to service of demand notice. In the entire SA, applicant has not pointed any illegality in the order dtd.3o-05-22 passed by ADM, Ghaziabad and more so in the relief clause also no relief has been sought against the said order passed u/s 14 SAMAESI Act.

¶18

In these circumstances, the present SA is dismissed being devoid of merits and substance.

¶19

¶20

File be consigned to record room.

¶21

J44.H.^Khan) Presiding Officer

Mr Satpal Singh v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Satpal Singh v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sharda Singh versus Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank

Mr Imran Qureshi versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Krishna Industries Rithani Industrial

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus R B Transport Comany

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Ganga Ram Patel

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Sandeep Garg