Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Redsun Agri Genetics Pvt. Ltd.

DRT17 Jan 2023APPEAL/4/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the recovery appeal as not maintainable. The impugned order was a non-conclusive observation made while noting a written submission, not a final order attracting appellate jurisdiction. The appellant is directed to initiate steps by furnishing the latest status of the pendency of the tenant's writ petition before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

The recovery appeal is dismissed as not maintainable; appellant bank to initiate steps before Recovery Officer furnishing latest position of the Writ petition.

State Bank of India versus Redsun Agri Genetics Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARYI2023

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB.^(Hons.),M'A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Recovery Appeal No.4 ot 2022

RP.No. 2a97 of 2OL7

OA.No, 656 ot 2OL7 (old oA.1073/2015, DRT-I)

¶9

Between:

¶10

State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-2 RTC X Roads, Chikkadpally Hyderabad

¶11

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶12

....Appellant/Petitioner

¶13

And

¶14

The Recovery Officer

¶15

Debts Recovery Tribunal-II First Floor, Triveni Complex

¶16

Abids, Hyderabad.

¶17

M/s. Redsun Agri Genetics Pvt. Ltd.

¶18

Represented by its Director

¶19

K. Ashok Kumar

¶20

Having Office at H. No. 1-4-180 /C- OI L BHEL Colony, Old Alwal

¶21

Medchal-Mal kajgiri District.

¶22

Ch. Raghavendra Rao Director, M/s. Redsun Agri Genetics Pvt, Ltd. Represented by its Director K. Ashok Kumar Having Office at H.No.1-4-1B0lC-4O/ t BHEL ,*ryajsiri Colony,Old AlwalDistrict. CIW,

¶23

R.A. 112022 in R.P.2897/2017 in O.A. No.656/2017

¶24

4.	K. GeorgeHerbert S/oLateYacob
	Agedabout43^years
	Occ:Business
	R/o MIG-544,Phase-II
	KPHBColony,Hyderabad Ranga ReddyDistrict.
5.	K.SantoshKumar S/oLateYacob
	Agedabout38^years
	Occ:Business
	R/o MIG-544,Phase-II KPHBColony,Hyderabad Ranga ReddyDistrict.
6.	K. Nagabhushanam S/oLateYacob
	Agedabout35^years Occ:Business
	R/o MIG-544, Phase-ll KPHBColony,Hyderabad Ranga ReddyDistrict.
7.	T.Laxminarayana,S/oRamachander Aged:Major, Occ:Business
B.	T.ArjunRao,S/oRamachander Aged:Major, Occ:Business
9.	Smt.T.Soni,W/oSriVenugoPal Aged:Major, Occ:Housewife
10.	T.Saichander,S/oRamachander Aged:Major, Occ:Business TheRespondents7to10 are^all ResidentsofH.No.8-3-833/Kl⁵
	Srinagar Colony,Hyderabad.

¶25

ffit*

¶26

R.A. 1t2022 in R.P.2897/2017 in O.A. No.656/2017

¶27

K. Ashok Kumar S/o K. Pedda Yelamanda Aged : Major, Occ: Business R/o H. No. 33-23-4 Krishna Rao Street Kastu rbaipet Vijayawada-520 010.

¶28

And also at: H. No. 7-2-1087/76/2 Sanath Nagar Behind Police Station Thulasi Nagar Hyderabad-500018.

¶29

..... Respondents

¶30

Advocate for Appellant/petitioner Respondents 2 to 11

¶31

Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy. Ex parte.

¶32

:: ORDER ::

¶33

This Recovery Appeal is filed by the Certificate Holder Bank in R.P.No.2B97l20L7 in O.A. No.656/2OU to set aside the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Recovery Officer-l of this Tribunal.

¶34

The averments of the appeal, briefly, are; that the appellant,s counsel filed memo dated 13.07.2022 along with letter oF appellant bank before the learned Recovery Officer-I of this Tribunal to proceed further with recovery certificate proceedings in respect of RC schedule property in RP No.2B97/2Afi in OA No.656/2017. However, the Recovery Officer citing the interim

¶35

oY,,*

¶36

tt.A.^4/2022 in R.P.2897/2017 in O.A.^No.656/2017

¶37

order^{passedby the Hon'ble HighCourt in WPMP No'13759i2016} in WP^{No.10917/2016dated 28'O4'20t6refused toissue} proclamation^{of sale' According to appellant bank' the WP} No.10917/2016^{is filed by the alleged tenant of the secured} asset challenging^{the action of appellantbank (1't respondent} bank in^{W.P.) from taking the physical possession of the} property on the^{strengthof the orderdated 20'02'2016passed} by the^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate'Cyberabadat L'B'Nagar} passed in^{Crl.M.P.No'200 of 2015' The SARFAESIproceedings} and the^{RDB Act proceedingsare differentto each other and} recovery^{proceedingsunder RDBAct cannot be stalled due to} pending SARFAESI^{proceedings'The Recovery Officer exceeded} his^{jurisdictionin passing the impugnedorder when there is no} representation^{of respondents 2 to 11 or the alleged tenant who} filed writ^{petition, The Recovery Officer did not apply his mind} while^{passing the impugned order' Aggrieved' hence this appeal'}

¶38

2 The 1't^{respondent is the RecoveryOfficer of this Tribunal'} Respondents^{6 to 10 were set ex parte on 28'10'2022and} respondents^{2 to 5 & 11 were sel ex parte on 14'12'2022 as} called absent^{and no representation'}

¶39

Heardthelearnedcounselfortheappellantbankandperused the material Placed^{on record '}

¶40

q It is contended^{by the learned counsel for the appellant bank is} that the^{Recovery Officerrefusedto issue proclamation of sale} by misinterpreting^{the interimorder dated 28'04'2016passed by} ffut-o (-!/^n'5'-'

¶41

R.A. 1t2022 in R.P.2897/2017 in O.A. No.656/2017

¶42

the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.109t7 of 2Ot6 filed by alleged tenant viz., M/s Lord's Grace Ministries assailing the action of appellant bank in taking physical possession of subject property in pursuance of orders of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl MP No.200 of 2015. It is further submitted that the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court is specific to taking physical possession under the SARFAESI proceedings and it is not an impediment for proceeding with recovery proceedings under the RDB Act, It is also submitted that the learned Recovery Officer passed the order without hearing the respondents or the alleged tenant thereby he exceeded jurisdiction. Unless the order dated 13.07.2022 is set aside, the appellant will not be able to pursue the recovery proceedings under the RDB Act. With these contentions, learned counsel sought to allow the appeal by setting aside the order impugned.

¶43

I have perused the application, order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the order dated 13.07.2022 of the learned Recovery Officer. What is observed, in the first instance, is that the order stated to be passed on 73.07.2022 by the learned Recovery Officer in fact is not an order giving rise to file an appeal. It is proceedings in RP No.2B97 of 2022 based on a memo filed by the counsel for the appellant, The memo is dated 13.07.2022 filed by the learned counsel accompanied by letter addressed by the appellant bank to their counsel informing him that the Wp was last llsted on 07.07.2076 and that they filed affidavit beFore the Recovery Officer on 15.06.2022 furnishing the status of writ (-/ /M)\1'\

¶44

R.A,. 112022 in R.P.2897/2017 in O.A.^No.656/2017

¶45

petition and that^{the stay was granted in SARFAESIproceedings} and not against^{recovery certificate proceedings'}

¶46

It is^{pertinent to noteone of the grounds urged in the appeal'as} at^{para 9, which is reproduced hereunder:}

¶47

"9. The learned^{RecoveryOfficer exceededhis} jurisdiction in^{passingthe impugnedorder dated}

¶48

-13-07-2022 where there is no representation from the side of the^{Respondents/CDRs2 to 11 nor the} alleged third^{party who is falsety claiming to be a} tenant in the^secured Pro7ertY"'

¶49

B. In my considered^{view, the appellant ought to have filed a} petition as per^{procedure oflaw by showing CDRs as} respondents'^{Nor did the appellant take any steps to implead the} alleged tenant^{a partyto the RC proceedings'In the absenceof} such steps as^{per procedure,the learned Recovery Officerhad} no occasion to^{afford opportunity to respondentsandpass} conclusive^{and speakingorder like in a petition' It can only be} construed as^{his observation and it reads as hereunder:}

¶50

In view of the^{above it is not just}

¶51

and^proper to^{proceed further for conducting} eauction of the^{RC scheduledproperty,sincethe} CH Bank is^{also a Respondent in the said Writ} PETITION",

¶52

to 03.08.2022^{for latest position'This}

¶53

He^posted the^matter 25.08.2022 wherein^{the appellant made}

¶54

appeal was Preferred^on Recovery Officer^{as 1't} respondent and^{certificate debtorsas} (7ffpt,tAfr,

¶55

R.4.4/2022 in R.P.2897/2017 in O.A. No.656/2017

¶56

respondents 2 to 11. These respondents were not parties to the memo/affidavit based on which the Recovery Officer observed as supra and such observation does not give rise to file an appeal and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶57

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶58

However, the appellant bank is at liberty to initiate steps before the learned Recovery Officer as per procedure of law by furnishing latest position of Writ Petition No.10917 of 2016 and the learned Recovery Officer shall consider the facts of the case and dispose of the same after affording opportunity to the concerned pa rties.

¶59

No costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and Recovery Officer.

¶60

(Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the LTth day of Ja nuary,2023) .

¶61

;/w** (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Redsun Agri Genetics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Redsun Agri Genetics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ms Sri Rama Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Smt Pathan Mehajabeen

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Vishwakarma Engineering Works and Others

Md Moiem versus State Bank of India

Central Bank of India versus Ms Hans Motors and Others

Central Bank of India versus Ms Hans Warehouse and Others