The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Special Appeal as infructuous. The court held that since the applicants failed to specify the dates of the demand and possession notices and did not claim specific reliefs, no relief could be granted based on settled law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLINAL LUCKNOW
Present: A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer
Date of order 04-08-2022
S.A. No.534 of 2022
Sl.No.56
Present:-
Counsel for the applicant Mr.B.S.Nagar Counsel for the bank Mr.Nitesh K.Tripathi
2' Counsel for applicant submits that applicants have challenged demand notice and possession notice also and have also filed application for condonation of delay on 01 -08-22. He further submits that SA is very well rnaintainable and there are several illegalities in the action of the bank which needs to be adjudicated.
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.
4' Perusal of Relief Clause of SA reveals that applicants have prayed to quash the action initiated by the bank declaring the account as NpA and further action u/s 13(2) and, l3(4). Hon,b,le supr.-. court in the case of Bharat . vide their judgment dtd.04- rr-2oog, in para l4 has held as under:-
"Puro 14 - The approach of the High court in granting relief not prayed for cannot be approved by this Court.,, It is fuither herd 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 ieliefs specifically prayed by the petitioner."
In the case of tne Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thrt % p"rty .annot 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/frp interested parry and deprive him of the valuable rights under the siatut r.,, f/
: .-<
L
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 obser.red that "a party cannot be granted a relief which is not claimed."
han) esiding Officer
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Appeal is maintainable when the applicant fails to specify the date of the notices sought to be quashed and prays only a broad quashing without specific relief.
Whether an application for quashing proceedings under the SARFAESI Act can be granted specific relief when the praying clause lacks details of the notices in question.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishna Priya Ganguly Vs. University of LucknowReferred¶16
Krishna Priya Ganguly Vs. University of Lucknow
Applicants
Bank
A. H. Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
