Dismissed

Ms Sms Green Tech Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

DRT16 Nov 2023SA/636/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal upheld the dismissal of an application filed by a borrower to set aside a possession notice issued by the bank's authorised officer. The court held the applicant was not an 'aggrieved person' satisfied that substantive legal injury and granted leave to enforce security. The appraiser dismissed as the applicant had failed to assign any reasonable grounds for the challeng

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application was dismissed, and the bank was permitted to continue proceedings to enforce its security interest over the schedule asset.

Ms Sms Green Tech Enterprises versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

l-\

¶2

THE DEBTS RECOVERYNTzuB;HTIL^. I, KARNATAKA

¶3

PRESENT: SRI IMTI AZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Dated the l6th day of November, 2023

¶5

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 636 OF 2022

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s SMS Green Tech Enterprises, (represented by its Proprietor, Suresh N), 92192, Eshwara Temple Road, Jaraganahalli, J P Nagar P.O, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560078.

¶8

...Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The authorised officer, Bank of Baroda, Regional Offrce, Bangalore, Karnataka.

¶11

Bank of Baroda, Oxford School Branch, 40, 1Oth Cross, J P Nagar P.O, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560078, represented by its ...... Defendants , Branch Manager.

¶12

This Securitisation Applioation having been heard on 28.03.2023 in the presence

¶13

of Advocate Shri Mohankumar for the applicant, and Advocate Shri M R Gopikrishna for the defendants, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

¶16

The applicant filed the above Securitisation Application (SA) on 26.09.2022 under S.l7(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as amended from time to time - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' - praying to set aside the possession notice dated 16.09.2022

¶17

sA636t2022

¶18

issued by the l't defendant. The applicant is none other than the borrower of different financial assistances availed from the 2nd defendant bank.

¶19

The defendants filed a statement of objection on 25.11.2002 and refuted the contentions raised by the applicant.

¶20

Going by the contentions raised by the applicant in the SA, the only issue arises for consideration is as to whether the applicant is entitled to the relief prayed for?

¶21

The Issue:- Though the applicant has challenged and prayed to set aside the possession notice dated 16.09.2022 issued by the I't defendant, it has not asserted any reason for the same. Availing of the loans and the due towards the 2'd defendant bank is admitted by the applicant. The only grievance expressed by the applicant in the SA is that the defendants have not permitted him to repay the overdue part by part. In spite of submitting that the applicant is challenging the validity of the possession notice dated 16.09.2022 issued by the l't defendant, no statement questioning its validity has been raised in the pleadings. The applicant in ground (1) has submitted that the market value of the property is more than {3 crores and for the said ground alone the possession notice issued by the I't defendant is to be quashed. The market value of the property has nothing to do with the possession notice. The applicant has no grievance in serving, affixing and publishing of the said notice. It is specifically submitted by the applicant that he is not disputing the claim of the defendants and that the applicant himself has committed default in repaying the amounts due to the 2"d defendant bank. He is only seeking accommodation either to settle the account or time to repay the amount, for which an application under S.l7(1) of the Act is not the proper recourse and remedy.No case is made out by the applicant to interfere by this Tribunal.

¶22

As per sub-sections (3) and (a) of S.17 of the Act, the jurisdiction, power and authority of this Tribunal is to examine the facts and circumstances of the case based evidences adduced by both sides to verify as to whether any of the measures ::l*

¶23

sA636t2022

¶24

/-\

¶25

referred to in sub-section (a) of S.13 of the Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thoreunder. In the instant case, the applicant has no case that he is aggrieved by any of the measures taken by the ltt defendant. Though he has challenged the possession notice dated 16.09.2022 issued by the I't defendant, he has not assigned any reason for the same.

¶26

The right to sue accrues to any person to file an application under S.l7(l) of the Act before this Tribunal only if he is really aggrieved by any of the measures to recover secured debt taken by the secured creditor or its authorised officer. The employment of the words 'any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the me'asures referred to in sub-section (a) of S.l3 of the Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer' under S.l7(l) of the Act clearly indicates that only those persons who are really aggrieved by any of the measures taken under S.l3(4) of the Act are having the right to file an application thereunder. The applicant has not established by reason or otherwise that he is deprived of any of his rights guaranteed under the Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force, by way of the measure taken under 5.13(4) of the Act by the l't defendant. He could not show that any legal injury caused to him. Therefore, the applicant does not come under the definition of 'aggrieved person' to make an application under S.17(l) of the Act. Thus, the applicant is having no locus standi to present such an application.

¶27

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v District Collector freoorted in 2012^(2.) KLT SN I^(C.No.1) SCJ has held that a person cannot be heard as a

¶28

party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party, and it reads so:-

¶29

¶30

"A person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There moy be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but judicially harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. The complainant has to establish that he hqs been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as q party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may K!;b"^{sfficient to confer a locusstandi to sue uponthe individual.There mustbe iniuria or a legal}

¶31

sA 636t2022

¶32

¶33

grievance which can be appreciated and not q stat pro ratione valuntas reasons i.e, a claim devoid of reasons. Under the garb of being necessqry parly, a person cannol be permitted to make a cqse as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become q party in the lis, as the person wants to become^q pqrty in a case, has to estqblish that he hos a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reqsons that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannol be heard^qs a parly unless he answers the description of aggrieved pary."

¶34

In the above circumstances and in view of the discussions as above, it is found that the applicant is not aggrieved by the recourse taken by the I't defendant under sub-section (a) of S.l3 of the Act by virtue of the possession notice dated 16.09.2022. The SA is liable to be dismissed, and, therefore, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the 2nd defendant bank is entitled to continue with further proceedings pursuant to the possession notice dated 16.09.2022 for recovery ofits secured debt by enforcing its security interest over the SA schedule secured asset.

¶35

In the result, IA No.264412022 is closed and SA 63612022 is dismissed. , The 2nd defendant bank, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, is permiued to continue with the proceedings in pursuant to the possession notice dated 16.09.2022 for recovery of its secured debt from the secured debtors by enforcing his security interest over the secured assets. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.

¶36

Communicate copy of this final order to both parties as provided in subsection (7) of S.17 of the Act r/w R.16 of ihe Debs Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,

¶37

1993 (as amended from time to time).

¶38

[Dictated^{to my PA directlyon the computer, correctedand pronounced by me in the openTribunalon this the]dh} day ofNovember,2023J

¶39

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^{- 1,} KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶41

PRESENT: SRI IMTI AZ ALT PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

Dated the 16th day of November,2023

¶43

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 636 OF 2022

¶44

Between M/s SMS Green Tech Enterprises, (represented by its Proprietor, Suresh N), 92192, Eshwara Temple Road, Jaraganahalli, J P Nagar P.O, Bangalore, Kamataka - 560078. And

¶45

...Applicant

¶46

The authorised officer. Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Bangalore, Karnataka and another.

¶47

Defendants

¶48

FINAL ORDER

¶49

\ ,r.+a \b'

Ms Sms Green Tech Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sms Green Tech Enterprises v. Bank of Baroda

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

Uco Bank versus Ms T D Enterprise

State Bank of India versus Jagriti Dubey

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sandhya Sanitary and Others

Sri B Pattabhiram Singh versus Federal Bank

Bank of India versus Sh. Jatinder Singh

Ms Stark Industries versus Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank)