Remanded

Ms as Enterprise and Anr. v. Indian Bank

DRT18 Nov 2024SA/143/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge restrained the respondent bank from taking symbolic possession of secured property without leave until it files an affidavit-in-opposition to the application challenging its impugned order, noting failure to reply to borrower representations.

What did the court decide?

Respondent bank restrained from taking possession without leave of Tribunal; directed to file affidavit-in-opposition to IA 2570 of 2024.

Case No. SA
Date of
the Order

143 of 2022
MS AS ENTERPRISE AND ANR –VS- INDIAN BANK
Order with Signature

Office action with
date and dated
Signature of
Parties when
necessary

18.11.202
4
(Sl. No. 15)
(Order No. 15)

Mr. Gaurav Singh,
Mr. Ankit Chatterjee,
Ms. Ahana Rakshit.
… For the Sarfaesi Applicants.

Learned
counsel
for
the
sarfaesi
applicants
has
challenged the order of the learned DM, Hooghly, dated 1.8.2024
on the following grounds :
The applicants/borrowers after service of demand notice
dated 20.1.2022 has submitted a representation to the
authorised officer of the respondent bank on 6.4.2022; but the
respondent bank has not given reply to the representation to the
applicants/borrowers and issued possession notice and affixed
possession notice on 20.4.2022 and has taken symbolic
possession of the secured property.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
possession of the secured property without giving reply to the
representation contravenes Section 13(3A) of the Sarfaesi Act
and has relied on authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the
case of ITC Limited –vs- Blue Coast Hotels Limited, reported in
(2018) 15 SCC 99.

Date of the Order	Order with Signature
	Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to
	the order of the learned DM wherein the learned DM has
	recorded that the borrower has submitted representation against demand notice, but there is no recording regarding reply
	of the respondent bank in the order. Besides, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted some other facts regarding amicable settlement which are not purview of the learned DM.
	The applicants have filed affidavit of service against respondent. In the said affidavit of service, it speaks regarding service of notice of this IA for hearing today, but the respondent bank is not present, nor any counsel is represented on behalf of respondent bank to reply to the allegations made by applicant/ borrower.
	Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
	The respondent bank is directed to file
	affidavit-in-opposition to IA 2570 of 2024 with copy to the applicants and list the IA for hearing on 22.1.2025.
	As the respondent bank has not given reply to the representation of the applicants/borrowers, the respondent bank is restrained from taking possession of the secured property without leave of this Tribunal.
	The put up petition IA 2578 of 2024 is disposed of.

Date of
the Order

Order with Signature

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to

the order of the learned DM wherein the learned DM has

recorded that the borrower has submitted representation
against demand notice, but there is no recording regarding reply

of the respondent bank in the order. Besides, the learned
counsel for the applicant submitted some other facts regarding
amicable settlement which are not purview of the learned DM.

The applicants have filed affidavit of service against
respondent. In the said affidavit of service, it speaks regarding
service of notice of this IA for hearing today, but the respondent
bank is not present, nor any counsel is represented on behalf of
respondent bank to reply to the allegations made by applicant/
borrower.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

The
respondent
bank
is
directed
to
file

affidavit-in-opposition to IA 2570 of 2024 with copy to the
applicants and list the IA for hearing on 22.1.2025.

As the respondent bank has not given reply to the
representation of the applicants/borrowers, the respondent bank
is restrained from taking possession of the secured property
without leave of this Tribunal.

The put up petition IA 2578 of 2024 is disposed of.

Ms as Enterprise and Anr. v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms as Enterprise and Anr. v. Indian Bank

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

Ramesh Samanta and Anr. versus Hdb Finance Services Ltd. and Anr.

Uco Bank versus Puskar Tradecom Private Ltd.

Mr Dipankar Sarkar and Ors. versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Bank of India versus Ms Bapuji Iron and Steel Mart

Ruma Pore and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Fortune Industries, and Ors.