Dismissed

M S Deeksha Iron Industries v. Bank of Baroda

DRT21 Sept 2023SA/64/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged NPA declaration and auction notices against Bank of Baroda. Court held proceedings legitimate as property was auctioned, possession taken, outstanding amount remained, and NPA order was later vacated. Application dismissed for failing to implead auction purchaser.

What did the court decide?

The special application was dismissed as it lacked merit due to successful auction, remaining dues, and failure to implead the auction purchaser.

M S Deeksha Iron Industries versus Bank of Baroda — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶3

SA No.- 64/2022

¶4

M/s. Deeksha Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd., 37, Pareek College Road, Bani Park, Jaipur-302016 through its Authorized Signatory/Director Shri Dheeraj Garg.

¶5

Dheeraj Garg S/o. Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, 37, Pareek College Road, Bani Park, Jaipur 302016 Director & Guarantor of M/s. Deeksha Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

Neeraj Garg S/o. Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, 37, Pareek College Road, Bani Park, Jaipur 302016 Director & Guarantor of M/s. Deeksha Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

...Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, B-23, Tonk Road, Shreeji Nagar,

¶10

Vasundhara Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) 302018

¶11

Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, Dausa Branch, Agra Road, District Dausa (Raj.) 303303.

¶12

.... Respondents

¶13

Present

¶14

Shri Yash Pal Garg, Counsel for the applicant

¶15

Shri Akshat Kulshreshtha, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶16

¶17

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶18

(Final Order) (21.09.2023)

¶19

(1) This SA was filed by SA applicant on 14-02-2022, being aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent bank.

¶20

(2) It is admitted in SA, that SA applicant availed credit facility from the

¶21

respondent bank and mortgaged the subject property.

¶22

(3) It is also admitted in the SA that on account of impact of Covid-19, economy of entire world was adversely effected and so Hon’ble Apex court passed an order to not to declare any account which was not declared as NPA-31-08-2020, as NPA 22-06-2021, in the matter of Gajendra Sharma vs Union bank of India in writ petition no. 825/2020, dt. 03.-09-2020.

¶23

(4) Based on above said ground, it is challenged that the declaration of account as NPA on 31-03-2021, is illegal and Ld. counsel for the SA applicant prayed to quash and set aside D/N dt. 07-04-2021 (Annexure A/2).

¶24

(5) In para 5.8 of the SA, it is admitted that the bank, issued an Action Notice on 18-08-2021 and put the subject mortgaged property for auction on 04-10-2021, by fixing a reserve price of Rs. 51.98 Lacs, which in fact was meager price.

¶25

(6) It is also admitted in para 5.9 of the SA, that A/N dt. 18/08/2021, and other illegal actions were challenged by SA applicant before Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition, Which was finally dismissed vide order dt. 05-01-2022 and liberty was granted to approach this tribunal.

¶26

¶27

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶28

(7) It response to para no. 5.13 of the SA, it is replied by the bank that the after adjustment of amount so recovered from the auction of the subject mortgaged properties, as on 14-03-2022, still an amount of Rs. 1569277/- is to due and outstanding and so Ld. counsel for the respondent bank argued that the SA isrequired to be dismissed.

¶29

(8) Ld. counsel for SA applicant-look objection with regard to service of Demand Notice, service of Possession Notice as well as auction notice was also challenged and so he prayed that all the actions,initiated by the respondent bank are required to be quashed and set aside.

¶30

(9) On the other hand Ld. counsel for the respondent bank strongly objected each and every ground taken by SA applicant in the light of documents, so filed along with the reply.

¶31

(10) Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶32

(11) As per record SA was filed on 14-02-2022, after a liberty granted by Hon’ble High Court at Jaipur, vide order dt. 05-01-2022, whereas, on 16-08-2021, Action notice was issued.

¶33

(12) Considering the fact as mentioned in para 5.13 to the reply, property was successfully auctioned, physical possession was taken on 12-102021, amount so received in the auction was adjusted but SA applicant failed to get the auction purchaser to be impleaded as a necessary party to the proceedings of this SA.

¶34

(13) Objection of declaration of account as NPA on 31-03-2021, as illegal is of no use because the order, was vacated by the Hon’ble Apex

¶35

¶36

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶37

Court while deciding the case of Gajendra Sharma vs. Union Bank of India (Writ Petition no. 476/2020) vide order dt. 23-03-2021.

¶38

(14) Service of Demand Notice dt. 07-04-2021, is also complete in the light of postal receipt filed along with the reply and this fact is very clear that the SA applicant was not at all aggrieved by any of the action taken by the respondent bank on 12-10-2021, when bank took physical possession of the subject property.

¶39

(15) So, considering entire facts and documents available on record it is

¶40

clear that there was nothing illegal, in the action initiated by the respondent bank, SA applicant failed to implead auction porches as necessary party to the proceedings of this SA and any adverse order shall effect the right of auction porches also.

¶41