Dismissed

Ms Nap Leathers Private Limited v. Ms Assets Reconstruction Company

DRT9 Feb 2024RA/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Review Appeal, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad dismissed the applicant's review application challenging the Tribunal's order in Security Appeals No. 245/2008. The court held that no mistake or apparent error on the face of the record existed to warrant a review, thereby dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application was dismissed. The order dated 18.11.2022 in Security Appeal No. 245/2008 remains unchanged.

Ms Nap Leathers Private Limited versus Ms Assets… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2C24

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

REVIEW APPEAL No.2/2O23 IN sA No.245,/zOOe

¶5

M/s NAP Leathers P.Ltd., Office at 9-1, HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad Rep. by its M.D. Sri A. HemachandChowdhary, S/o late A.M. Chowdhary Aged 43 years

¶6

..Applbant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.M/s assets Reconstruction Company (lndia) Ltd., (ARCIL), office at 17th floor, Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-2 1 through its Authorized Offi cer AmeetaTreharn.

¶9

M/s Bretton Wood FinleaseP.Ltd.,

¶10

H.S.Nalwa Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 1 10005.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1

¶13

..Respondents.

¶14

Si A. Ramakrshna. Smt. P. S. Sujatha

¶15

-:ORDER:-

¶16

The present Reviewapplication is filed by the Applicant Rule 5A r/w Section 22(2)(el of RDB Act, 1993 r/w Section t7(Tl of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for reviewing the orders dt. 18.1 1.2022 passed by this Hon,ble Tribunal in SA 245l2008.

¶17

¶18

i!::

¶19

filed by the Managing Director of the Applicant support of the Review Application, it is averred that the Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata while remanding to this Hon'ble Tribunal, had categorically mentioned ts to be answered such as:

¶20

Rev. A pplicotion 2/2 02 3

¶21

a) Wlether the steps taken bg the Bank under Section 13(4) of SARFAESIAcT are in accord_ance uith the law or not?

¶22

b) Whether replg under Sectionl3(3)(A) is giuen or not?

¶23

c) Whether the second n.otice u/s 13(2) while the first notice u/s 13(2) is in subsislence can be giuen? If so, tahat u-,ouid. Ae tne stans if t'il

¶24

first^notice?

¶25

d) whether an Aduocate is competent to giue notice utithout there being ang .ins.truction: from competent peison i.e., upon instructions if 'Authorized OJJicer, as enuisaged bg the SARFAESI Act and" RuleZ thereto?

¶26

e) Whether the date of issuance of a notice bg th.e pred.ecessor of the Respondent No.1 herein i.e., the Bank giuing notice dt. j4.lO.iggZ giu.e o fresh cause of action or limitation,- o" ihe notice is not part of this record?

¶27

J) The .obsen.tationof the Hon'bre Appeilate Tribunar uith regard. to the As.signmentAgreement was that ihis petitioner/ Applicint had. no grieuance in assigning the debt to Respond.ent No.i,- but whether the action of Respondent ARC ls in pursuance of the assignmeit agreement u.lc"s ualid and in consonance with the termi and conditions of agreement or not, which aspect had not been d.ealt.

¶28

s) whether the action taken bg th.e Respond ent w,,s within rimitation and from uhich date, the peiod. of 12 gears as to be reckoned.?

¶29

a After filing of the SA, the lstRespondent failed to file their reply and the 2oa Respondent Iiled their reply with a delay. It is pertinent to consider as to whether the 2"d notice u/s 13(2) of the SARF.AESI Act issued by the Respondent No. I dt.27.0 6.200Z is within the limitation or is barred by limitation. The impugned action of seizure under Section 13(a) without any prior notice give n, is taken in pursuance to the first impugned notice dt. 10.03.2006 and not the second impugned notice. A perusal of the order dt. lg. 11.2022 makes t the arguments submitted on behalf of the Applicant are

¶30

-r'ij erstood and are mis-represented in the orders. This

¶31

t.a' appreciate that the objections raised by the to the Assignment Agreement between the lst

¶32

e predecessor bank is as per the averments of the

¶33

ed thereto in the said assignment deed, the dues of

¶34

Rev.Appl icoti on 2 /202 3

¶35

the Petitioner/Applicant cannot be assigned, but of other borrowers, it can be assigned' Recalring of the loan by state Bank of India through regal notice dt.r4.10.rgg7 cannot be taken as starting of limitation, as the said notice is neither filed by this petitioner nor fired by the 1"t respondent herein, oniy reference is made in the main SA. Since 17. ll.lg94 there was no payment whatsoever, in such a situation, wilr issuance of the legal notice given fresh rease of rife or limitation for initiating action, as per Articre 62 of Limitation Act, 196s.

¶36

This Review Application is resisted by the 1st Respondent by liling counter affidavit. It is contended that this Tribunal has thoroughly examined the contentions of the Respondents and the petitioner in view of the orders passed by the Hon,ble Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata dt.l}.I2.2Ol9 in appeal No.3O9/20lg and passed orders dt. 18.11.2022 after hearing the oral arguments and considering the written arguments of both the parties. As such, there is no mistake or apparent error in the order dt. lg.1 1.2022 passed by this Hon,ble Tribunal, hence the Review petition is not maintainable. If aggrieved by the order of this Tribunar, the petitioners have to seek relief under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 before the Hon,ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and not by way of a Review petition before this Tribunal. This Tribunal has clearly held that the lst Respondent was justified in taking possession of the schedule properties. The argument of the Applicant herein with regard to the aspect of limitation was not accepted by this Tribunal.

¶37

The Applicant filed their Reply/rejoinder affidavit denying the averments made by th ndent in their counter affidavit.

¶38

Heard I and perused the material brought on rr0 7. Now, the for con

¶39

Rev. Ap pl icotion 2 /202 3

¶40

WtLether the Applicant has established. ang ground for reuieu.ting the order dt. 18. I 1.2022 passed by this Tibunal in SA 245/ 20O8?

¶41

During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the l"tRespondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶42

A perusal of the record indicates that challenging the action of the l"t Respondent in taking possession of the secured assets, the Applicant filed sA 245/2oo\ before this Tribunal. After hearing both the parties, initially SA 24512OO8 was dismissed vide order dt.2O.OZ.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant herein preferred anAppeal before the Hon'ble Appetlate Tribunal, Kolkata and the said Appeal was allowed vide orders dt.lO.I2.2OI9 and the above SA was remanded to this Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties. After remanding of the matter, this Tribunai heard arguments of both the parties and passed order dt. 18.1 1.2022 dismissing the SA. Challenging the dismissal of the SA, the present Review Application is fiied by the Applicant.

¶43

A perusal of the order dt. 18.1 r.2022 rnakes it clear that this Tribunal has considered all the points raised by the applicant herein particuiarly regarding the validity of the Assignment Deed dt.30.03.2005 executed by State Bank of India in favour of the lst respondent and also whether the steps initiated by the 1"t Respondent are barred by limitation or not.

¶44

In Paras No.12 & 13 of the order dt. 18. 11.2022, this Tribunal has discussed the limitation aspect and held that the steps

¶45

lslu$ft-N. l.tRespondent are not barred by time, in view of the

¶46

r"atlur"t il&, was recalled by the SBI on 14.10.1997 by issuing

¶47

ll - -th'e^ql'f?li 'said''dat#"fit;['^to{ Applicant and as such, the limitation starts from . Counsel for the Applicant argued that the

¶48

Rev.Applicotion 2/2023

¶49

Assignment Deed dt.30.03.2o05 executed by SBI in favour of the lst respondent is bad in law since by the date of assignment, the set off and counter claim filed by the Applicant in o.A.r244l2otg were pending. In Para No. 1 1 of the order dt. 1g. rr.2022, this Tribunal held that the Applicant cannot contend that the Assignment Deed dt.30.03.2005 cannot be executed by SBI in view of the counter claim and set off preferred by the Applicant in o.A. filed by the sBI as the Applicant is a 3.d party to the Assignment Deed.

¶50

so, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Tribunal has rightly expressed its opinion on various points raised by the Applicant herein during the course of arguments in sA 24512008. So, I find no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dt.lg. ll.2o22 passed by this Tribunal in sA 24sl2o0g. So there are no merits in the Review Application and the same is tiable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour of the lstRespondent.

¶51

In the result, the present Review Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶52

t4. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶53

bs her, corrected, signed. and. pronounced. bs me in the open court on this the gh d.ag '?r'";:;"1"L,'22ifi.,^"""""nbed'

¶54

sd/(c. coPIcHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

/i:f7:w ,;i:;if;ffi

Ms Nap Leathers Private Limited v. Ms Assets Reconstruction Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Nap Leathers Private Limited v. Ms Assets Reconstruction Company

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus M/S. Bhadrakali Industries

Bank of India versus Sri. Reddimala Vijaya Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Peddi Pavani

Canara Bank versus M/S. Blue Max Impex (India) Private Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dr. Bodati Lakshmi Narayana

State Bank of India versus M/S.Windhu Hospitalities