Dismissed

M S Shikhar Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank

DRT4 Aug 2022SA/533/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application for quashing the bank's NPA declaration and auction notices. The court held the sale notice as infructuous due to no bids, dismissed the delay condonation as insubstantial, and refused relief due to lack of specific prayers under settled Supreme Court law.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Sale notice challenge dismissed as infructuous; Principal Application dismissed as infructuous.

M S Shikhar Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

s^r'.,

¶2

IN THE, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LI]CKNOW

¶3

Present: A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer

¶4

Date of order 04-08-2022

S.A. No.533 of 2022

Sl.No.55

Present:-

Counsel for the applicant Mr.Arvind K. Shrivastava Counsel for the bank Mr.Nitesh K.Tripathi

¶9

Counsel for the bank submits that no bids have been received pursuant to Sale notice dtd.28-06 -22 and other relief sought by applicant are barred by limitation and prays that the SA may be disposed of as infructuous. He further submits that applicants have submitted a OTS proposal alongwith upfront amount of Rs.01 Crore which is pending consideration with higher authorities.

¶10

Counsel for applicant submits that applicants have challenged demand notice and possession notice also and have also filed application for condonation of delay on 0l -08-22. He further submits that SA is very well maintainable and there are several illegalities in the action of the bank which needs to be adjudicated.

¶11

3' Heard Counsel for the parties. As regards challange to Sale notice dtd.28-06 -22 is concerned, in view of statement made by the Counsel for bank, the same is dismissed as infructuous.

¶12

4' Perusal of Relief Clause of SA reveals that applicants have prayed to set aside the action initiated by the bank declaring the account as NpA and fufther action u/s 13(2) and 13(4). Hon'bre Supreme court in the case of Bharat . vide their judgment dtd.04-1 r-2009, in para 14 has held as under:-

¶13

"Pqro 74 - The approach of the High court in granting relief not prayed for cannot be approved by this clourt.,, 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 Supre"me Court nu, fr.tt er held that "normally the court will grant only those reliefs specifically prayed by the petitioner."

¶14

In the case of Hon,bleSupremeCourtt,u't,.t@annotbegrantedarelieftne which is not claimed, if the circumstances ol the cases lre such that the granting of such relief would result in serious prejudice t{/"]nrJ.".rr.a ,rLwrL party and deprive him of the valuable rights under th" siatrt"-,:7 7"

,/.\

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."

¶19

In the present case, it is apparent that applicants have not sought any specific relief and have simply prayed to quash the entire proceedings initiated by bank r:/s 13(2) and 13(4) SARFAESI Act,2002. Applicants have not mentioned the date of demand notice and possession notice they seeks to be quashed. Thus, in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, no relief can be granted to them in this regard.

¶20

Even otherwise, in the application for condonation of delay, applicants in Para 3 have admitted that they received the possession notice but as settlement talks were going on they could not challange the same within time. The reason assigned for the delay does not appear to be genuine and has no force in the eyes of law. Therefore, I do not find any reason to condone inordinate delay of almost four years in challenging the possession notice dtd.15-11-18 which was duly received by applicants.

¶21

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed being devoid of merits and substance. As a consequence, the present SA also stands dismissed being infructuous as well as barred by limitation.

¶22

File be consigned to record room.

¶23

A. H. Khan) residing Officer

M S Shikhar Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Shikhar Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs Vertika Srivastava

Mrs Babita Agarwal versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Gsm Foods

Sarika Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Ashok Sharma versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Canara Bank versus Ms Sun Shine Trading Co.