Allowed

Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab National Bank

DRT21 Apr 2023MA/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by an auction purchaser seeking compensation for registration expenses incurred when the sale of a secured asset was set aside. The court modified a prior order to refund the specific amount of registration and other fees claimed by the successful bidder.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs. 8,90,100/- towards registration expenses and other fees to the applicant.

Mukesh Kumar versus Punjab National Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

DRT, PATNA

MA 02/2023 [0]

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna.

¶5

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

MA020f2023

¶7

Mukesh Kumar, 5/0 Late Ram Chandra Prasad, R/o village - Gowal Tali, P.O. - Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S. Agamkuan, District - Patna.

¶8

.........Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Niraj Kumar, 5/0 Late Saryug Prasad, Ganesh Lal Road, XTII Road, Near Polson Butter Factory, Digha Patna.

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Patna Chankya Tawar, R-Block Patna.

¶12

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Moradpur Branch, Khethan Market, Patna 800004.

¶13

--Respondents

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant : Dr. Binay Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent no.l : Sh. S.K.Srivastava, Advocate For the respondent no. 2 & 3 : Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate

¶16

Dated: 21.04 .2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This misc. applicant is auction purchaser and filed this petition for compensation for payment of registration expenses and also for compensation. IA 15/2023 has been filed alongwith this MA to condone the delay.

¶19

The brief facts of the case is that the borrower Niraj Kumar filed SA 141/2019 before this Tribunal against the measures taken under SARFAESI Act by the respondent bank vide which secured asset has been auctioned sold on 04.04.2019 to the present applicant (auction purchaser). The Tribunal after hearing of the parties in SA 141/2019 allowed the SARFAESI

¶20

~ '\ v.,_'...(C .,fl-J

DRT, PATNA

MA 02/2023 [0]

Application filed by borrower Niraj Kumar for the reason that the bank's action was held to be violative of statutory mandatory provisions auction salewas set aside.

¶25

On the point of limitation it is stated that neither a true and free copy of the order dated 28.09.2022 passed in SA 141/2019 was delivered nor was it communicated by ORTin terms of Rule 16 of ORT(Procedure) Rules 1993 to the applicant. The respondent bank by a letter dated 09.11.2022 informed to the applicant to receive the 00 in the light of order dated 28.09.2022, thereafter, the applicant wrote a letter dated 15.11.2022 to the bank for refund of amount alongwith registration cost and interest but the bank did not respond. Thereafter, the applicant contacted the lawyer to apply for a certified copy of the order, which was delivered to him on 23.12.2023, accordingly, this MA hasbeen filed on 27.12.2022.

¶26

It has been pleaded by the applicant that the applicant participated in the e-auction sale conducted by the bank with the offer of Rs.33.70lacs and was declared successful bidder. Accordingly, deposited the entire consideration amount and the respondent bank issued sale certificate dated 17.04.2019 and executed the Deed of Conveyanceon 11.06.2019 in favour of applicant. Thereafter, the borrower preferred SA before this Tribunal which was allowed by an order dated 28.09.2022. The respondent bank by a letter dated 09.11.2022 required the applicant to receive a 00 for the auction amount alongwith simple interest thereon at 12% as directed by the Hon'ble DRT,Patna from Respondent no.3. The applicant wrote backto the respondent bank by a letter dated 15.11.2022 requesting him to refund the amount with interest and registration cost and also pay the adequate compensation but the respondent bank did not revert to the applicant.

¶27

The applicant had paid the entire consideration amount in terms of Rule9(2) to 9(4) of the Rulesand it was only on satisfaction of the above statutory provisions that the bank issued sale certificate u/r 19(6) of the Rules. The applicant had arranged the required amount by borrowing at high interest from money lenders and selling ornaments of his wife and deposited the entire consideration amount. Apart from this the applicant had also incurred expenseson registration and other costs amounting to Rs.10lacsapproximately.

¶28

Ld. Counsel for the applicant further prayed to refund registration expensesand compensation, amounting to Rs.10lacsapproximately. 5. Despite opportunities, respondents failed to file a reply in the matter. But it has been orally submitted that the applicant hasabandoned and relinquished the right to claim the registration expenses. 6. Perusedthe recordandconsideredthe sUbm~f t'::;PPlicant.

¶29

t'::;PPlicant. _-r: ~,_ \A..~

MA 02/2023 [0]

DRT, PATNA

The applicant of the present casehas prayed for refund of expenses incurred on registration and also the compensation amount to Rs.10lacs approximately. It has been alleged that the applicant bonafidely participated in the e-auction sale conducted by the bank and deposited the entire consideration amount of Rs.33.70 lacs with the bank, whereafter the respondent bank issued sale certificate dated 17.04.2019 and executed the Deed of Conveyance on 11.06.2019 in favour of applicant. The respondent bank by a letter dated 09.11.2022 required the applicant to receive a DDfor the auction amount alongwith simple interest thereon at 12% as directed by the Hon'ble DRT,Patna from Respondent no.3. The applicant had arranged the required amount by borrowing at high interest from money lenders and selling ornaments of his wife and deposited the entire consideration amount. Apart from this the applicant had also incurred expenseson registration and other costs amounting to Rs.10 lacs approximately. Therefore the applicant has claimed compensation by filing this petition.

¶34

The details of stamp duty and other fees has been disclosed in Annexure-B at page 15 that is Rs.7,11,200/- stamp duty and Rs.1,78,900/as other fees total Rs. 8,90,100/-. Although these details were not submitted and claimed by the applicant at an earlier stage when the order to refund sale consideration was passed. But in any case it cannot be treated as a waiver of right to claim the expenditure. It could have been included in the deposited amount. The applicant cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part. Assuchthe present deservesto be allowed.

¶35

In view of the above discussion, the present Misc. application is allowed and the order dt.28.09.2022 passed in SA141/2019 is modified to the extent that the respondent Bank is also directed to pay Rs.8,90,100/-to the applicant, as registration expensesincurred by him.

¶36

Consignthe record.

¶37

[Kaushalendra Yadav] Presiding Officer

¶38

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Date: 21.04.2023

Mukesh Kumar v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Francis Andrews Xavier versus Axis Bank

Aditya Overseas versus Punjab National Bank

Vijender Kumar versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Sanjay Kumar Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Central Bank of India versus Sri Dharmendra Awasthi

Canara Bank versus Balappa