Dismissed

Sh R K Baria v. Punjab National Bank

DRT4 Sept 2024MA/91/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh dismissed the petitioners' application to restore their Special Application No. 119 of 2021, which had been disposed of due to counsel's alleged lack of instructions despite the petitioner's denials and denial of notice. The court found the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous application to restore Special Application No. 119 of 2021 was dismissed; no restoration effectuated.

Sh R K Baria versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

MA No.91 of 2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

MA No. 91 of 2024

¶4

In SA No. 119 of 2021

¶5

R.K. Baria and another Versus Punjab National Bank

¶6

04.09.2024 Item No.105

¶7

Argued by: Sh.MS Jandiala & Sh.Devender Rattan, Counsel for the Applicants alongwith Sh.RK Baria/Applicant No.1 in person. Sh.DK Gupta, Counsel for Respondent Bank/PNB.

¶8

RK Baria and another (Applicants) have filed this Miscellaneous Application for restoration of SA No. 119/2021 filed by them, against the Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank (Respondent), which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 30.07.2024.

¶9

The case of the Applicants is that they had filed SA No. 119/2021, wherein they had impugned the possession notice dated 10.06.2021. Vide order dated 01.09.2021, this Tribunal had ordered both the parties to maintain status quo. It is stated that Applicant No. 1 is a retired Senior Gynaecologist from the State of Himachal Pradesh and is residing with his family at Solan. It is alleged that the Applicant remained in touch with his counsel throughout the pleadings. On 03.08.2024, Bank affixed the notice at the residence of the Applicants, demanding a sum of Rs. 2,28,83,262.27p. Thereafter, Applicant No.1 approached the Bank on 05.08.2024 and enquired about the notice dated 03.08.2024. The Bank officials apprised the Applicant No.1 that the Bank has auctioned the subject property in March, 2024. Bank officials asked the Applicant to visit the branch on 13.08.2024. On 13.08.2024, when the Applicant visited the branch, he came to know that Bank has already sold the subject property and after adjusting the dues, the remaining payment of excess amount has been transferred to another Bank, namely The Baghat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Applicant requested to provide further details. On 14.08.2024, Applicant visited The Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and requested them to provide the statement of his saving account. Applicant

¶10

¶11

MA No.91 of 2024

¶12

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶13

came to know that excess amount of Rs. 55,30,579.49p has been paid to the Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. Applicant also came to know that the Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited transferred the said excess amount from the saving account of Applicant No.1 to the loan account, without the knowledge and consent of Applicant No. 1. It is alleged that PNB connived with the Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and misappropriated the funds, in an illegal manner. Applicants state that they reserve their right to file criminal case against PNB and the Baghat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited. It is also alleged that on 16.08.2024, Applicant checked the official website of this Tribunal and he came to know that vide order dated 30.07.2024, the application of the Applicant has been disposed of due to pleading no instructions by the proxy counsel, despite the fact that the Applicant has not given any such instructions. It is alleged that no notice was served upon the Applicant before passing the order dated 30.07.2024. They came to know that the Bank has auctioned the property to Ravinder Kumar at a throwaway price in order to benefit the auction purchaser, for the reason best known to them. It is alleged that the market value of the property is more than Rs.7 crores.

¶14

On these facts, Applicants filed the present miscellaneous application and prayed that the SA be restored to its original number.

¶15

Bank, in reply to the application, has alleged that vide application dated 30.11.2018, PNB had sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 146.37 lacs to the Applicants. They also requested for fresh Term Loan of Rs. 76 lacs (Rs.70 lacs as Term Loan and Rs. 6 lacs as Met Suraksha), in all amounting to Rs.222.37 lacs. To secure the loan, Applicant No. 1 had executed mortgage-deed, dated 05.01.2019 in respect of his immoveable property measuring 00-04-98 Hectare, in favour of the Bank. Again Applicant No.1 executed mortgagedeed, dated 07.01.2019, in respect of his immovable property measuring 00-

¶16

¶17

MA No.91 of 2024

¶18

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶19

03-36 Hectare, in favour of the Bank. Applicants did not pay the dues of the Bank and on 31.03.2021, Bank declared the account NPA. On 06.04.2021, Bank served the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. On 11.08.2021, Bank issued the symbolic possession notice under Section 13(4). The possession notice was also affixed on the property on 11.08.2021. It is stated that the Bank had also filed OA No. 2278-2021, which has been allowed by this Tribunal and the Recovery Certificate of the same is pending. Applicants filed SA No. 119/2021 challenging the SARFAESI action. Vide order dated 30.07.2024, the said SA was disposed of as counsel for the Applicant pleaded no instructions. An application for taking possession of the secured asset was filed by the authorized officer of the Bank, before DM, Solan, who allowed the same vide order dated 03.07.2024. On 03.08.2024, Applicants were informed that the Bank would take the possession on 29.08.2024. The notice dated 03.08.2024 was also affixed on the property. Accordingly, the physical possession of the property was taken on 29.08.2024. It is stated that on 20.09.2023, the Bank got the property valued at Rs.2.50 crores. On 24.11.2023, Bank issued the notice for e-auction, for 19.12.2023. The auction notice was also affixed on the property on 30.11.2023 and was published in the newspapers on 28.11.2023. On 19.12.2023, the property was purchased by Ravinder Singh son of Hari Singh, for a sum of Rs. 3.08 crores, against the reserve price of Rs.2.50 crores. The auction purchaser has also deposited the whole of the money within the statutory period. On 30.03.2024, Bank issued the sale certificate to the auction purchaser. The entire sale proceeds have been appropriated by the Bank. It is stated that earlier also Bank had issued the sale notice for e-auction, for 30.10.2023. However, there was no bidder. It is stated that the PNB has come to know that the property has been got attached by Shri Anurag Negi, Arbitrator, vide order dated 25.03.2022 in some arbitration proceedings instituted by the Baghat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited against the Applicants. Vide order dated 12.03.2024,

¶20

¶21

MA No.91 of 2024

¶22

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶23

this was intimated by the Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited to PNB and it was requested that the surplus amount be remitted. Accordingly, the PNB transferred this surplus amount to the Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the present MA and the same be dismissed.

¶24

I have heard Dr. MS Jandiala and Mr.Devender Rattan, counsel for the Applicants and Mr.DK Gupta, counsel for the Punjab National Bank.

¶25

Admittedly, on 30.07.2024, SA No. 119/2021 was disposed of as Ms.Neha Arora proxy for Mr.KPS Dhillon pleaded no instructions. Mr. Jandiala, counsel for the Applicants has argued that Applicants had never instructed their counsel not to put in appearance. The counsel did not put in appearance on account of miscommunication. Mr.Jandiala submitted that the application for restoration was filed within time. Accordingly, the present MA be allowed and SA No. 119/2021 be restored to its original number.

¶26

7. Per contra , Mr.Gupta, counsel for Respondent Bank (PNB) has submitted that the SA was disposed of on 30.07.2024 as Applicants had pleaded no instructions. He further submitted that even in the SA, Applicants have not challenged the sale. The auction took place on 19.12.2023. On 20.12.2023, Applicant No. 1 visited the branch and gave in writing, in his own hand, that he knows that the property has been sold. Counsel submitted that even if this MA is restored, it would not make any difference as the property has already been sold and the Applicant has not challenged the same. Regarding the payment to the Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Mr.Gupta summited that it was paid in pursuance to the attachment order passed by the Arbitrator, in some arbitration proceedings.

¶27

¶28

MA No.91 of 2024

¶29

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶30

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶31

First of all, SA No. 119/2021 filed by the Applicants was disposed of on 30.07.2024 as the counsel for the Applicant had pleaded no instructions. Further, the Applicant has not challenged the sale in the SA. Mr. Gupta has shown to me a letter dated 20.12.2023 written by Applicant No.1, in his own hand, to PNB stating that he had the knowledge of the sale.

¶32

In view of the above, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present MA. The same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶33

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶34

Pronounced in open court MANOJ/04.09.2024

¶35

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶36

Sh R K Baria v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh R K Baria 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saheeda K versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Shri. Mallesh Narsaiah Paaka

Chavda Traders and Ors. versus Au Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Debashis Sarkar and Ors.

Balai Sarkar versus Union Bank of India

Manohar Annaji Walekar versus the Kanyaka Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd.