Allowed

Machinewworks International Limited v. Indian Bank

DRT3 Jul 2024SA/172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's challenge against orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, holding them unsustainable due to lack of recorded satisfaction on nine-point affidavits and the introduction of new facts. Possession was restored.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of possession of the secured property to the applicant within 10 days; SARFAESI actions under Section 14 quashed.

Machinewworks International Limited versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – 1, KOLKATA

¶3

JEEVANSUDHA BLDG. 9^TH FLOOR,

¶4

42/C, J.L.NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA – 700071

¶5

BEFORE SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶6

SA No. 172 of 2022

¶7

MACHINEWORKS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED, an existing Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at “Motijug House”, 1, Auckland Place, Kolkata – 700017.

¶8

...................Applicant

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

INDIAN BANK (erstwhile Allahabad Bank), a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 carrying on business inter-alia at its 7, Red Cross Place, Kolkata – 700001 commonly known as its Stressed Assets Management Branch.

¶11

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, working for gain at Indian Bank, having office at 4^th Floor, 377, 378 GD Block, Sector – III, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700106.

¶12

................Defendants

¶13

SANJIT KUMAR NAYAK, Liquidator of Ural India Ltd. (the Company right now is in Liquidation by virtue of order passed by Learned NCLT, Kolkata Bench), residing at 30 E, Haramohan Ghosh Lane, Suryadeep, Flat – 2B, Beliaghata, Kolkata – 700085

¶14

4A. M/S. CFM Asset Construction Pvt. Ltd., having its office address at 1^st floor, Wakefield House, Sprott Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400038.

¶15

4B. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, M/S. CFM Asset Construction Pvt. Ltd., discharging its function on and from 1^st floor, Wakefield House, Sprott Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400038.

¶16

...........Proforma Defendants

¶17

Present: For Applicant : Mr. Souritra Ganguly, Mr. Avishek Guha, Mr. D. Basu Roy, Ld. Advocates For Respondent Bank : Ms. Akakini Sen, Ld. Advocate For Respondent Nos. 4a &4b:Mr. Abhrajit Mitra,Sr. Counsel Mr. D. Karmakar,

¶18

¶19

Mr. Rajshree Kajaria, Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, Mr. Abir Lal Ghosh and Mr. Pradip Sancheti… Ld. Advocates For the Official Liquidator : Ms. Jeenat Shabab Ld. Advocate and Mr. Sanjit Kr.Nayak

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Delivered on 3^rd July, 2024

¶22

The Sarfaesi Applicant has filed application u/s 17(1) of the Sarfaesi Act challenging the action of the Respondent Bank to initiate proceedings u/s 14 of Sarfaesi Act as well as order of the Ld. CMM dated 25/03/2022 with further relief with interim order as the Applicant is entitled to.

¶23

Sarfaesi Applicant is the Machineworks International Limited. One Ural India Ltd. has taken credit facilities from the Allahabad Bank in the year 2006. The Applicant has mortgaged the secured property situated at ‘Motijug House’ at 1 Auckland Place, Kolkata 700 017. The credit facilities was increased from time to time. The Applicant has enclosed several sanctioned letters dated 02/11/2006,31/12/2008,15/09/2010 and 28/06.2012 as Annexure ‘A’. Ural India Ltd. has defaulted in payment of the outstanding dues and the account has been classified as NPA on 12/07/2014. Demand Notice dated 31/07/2014 u/s 13(2) was issued against Ural India Ltd.. as well as the Applicant and other guarantors for an amount of Rs.28,29,36,894.28 vide Annexure ‘C’.

¶24

On the Application of Allahabad Bank CIRP proceedings u/s 7 of the IBC 2016 was initiated and the said application has been admitted

¶25

¶26

by order of the Hon’ble NCLT,Kolkata Bench vide Annexure ‘E’. The resolution process was successful for which Hon’ble NCLT,Kolkata Bench passed order dated 15/01/2021 that the corporate debtor to be liquidated as per Section 13(2) of the IBC and appointed Mr. Sanjit Kumar Nayak as Liquidator. The Applicant has annexed the order of the Hon’ble NCLT, Kolkata Bench dated 15/02/2021 vide Annexure ‘F’.

¶27

After merger of the Allahabad with the Respondent Bank (Indian Bank) measures were taken to obtain order of the Ld. CMM, Kolkata dated 10/02/2021 vide Annexure ‘G’. Sarfaesi Applicant has challenged the order of the Ld. CMM, Kolkata dated 10/02/2021 in SA/76/2021. The matter was heard by this Tribunal in IA/1096/2021 and the order of the Ld. CMM,Kolkata dated 10/02/2021 was set aside with observation that the Respondent Bank may obtain further order. The order of the Tribunal dated 23/09/2021 in IA/1096/2021 is annexed as Annexure ‘A’.

¶28

The Applicant did not know about the action of the Respondent Bank. The Applicant came to know about further order of the Ld. CMM through RTI application that the said order was passed on 25/03/2022 by the Ld. CMM,Kolkata. The Applicant has contended that the order of the Ld. CMM, Kolkata is illegal as during pendency of the Sarfaesi Application the said order was passed and the Respondent Bank did not inform about the pendency of the SA.

¶29

¶30

It is further contended that Applicant has filed Title Suit being no. 26 of 2021 before Ld. Commercial Court at Alipore and the said Suit is pending and has enclosed the plaint of the Title Suit as Annexure ‘J’.

¶31

It is further contended by the Applicant that Ld. CMM was also not informed about the CIRP proceeding before the Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench is pending. It is further alleged by the Applicant that there was no proper affidavit before the Ld. CMM. Ld. CMM passed order without expressing satisfaction on the nine points for which the order of the Ld. CMM dated 25/03/2022 is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

¶32

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has filed IA/1113/2022 challenging the order of the Ld. CMM dated 25/03/2022. In the said IA Applicant has annexed sanctioned letters and other documents.

¶33

Respondent Bank has filed affidavit in opposition to the SA as well as IA/1113/2022 denying the allegations made by the Applicant. After hearing both the parties this Tribunal in IA/1113/2022 passed order on 14/07/2022 directing the Respondent Bank not to take coercive measures till final hearing of IA/1113/2022 with observation that the Applicant will settle the account by depositing upfront amount with complete settlement proposal. This interim order was extended from time to time.

¶34

On the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Bank on 22/06/2023 this Tribunal did not extend the interim order as the Applicant has not approached the Bank with upfront money. When the interim order was

¶35

¶36

not extended by order dated 22/06/2023 the Respondent Bank took possession of the secured property on the basis of the order of the Ld. CMM. The Applicant has challenged the action of the Respondent Bank by filing IA/1650/2023. In this IA Applicant has submitted that Respondent Bank obtained further order of the Ld. CMM dated 18/07/2023 on new facts by way of affidavit which the Ld. CMM has no jurisdiction. The subsequent order is reassessment and review of the earlier order dated 25/03/2022 which is not permissible.

¶37

This Tribunal vide order dated 18/08/2023 in respect of SA and IA/1113/2022 and IA/1650/2023 directed the Respondent Bank not to take further action on the basis of the order of the Ld. CMM dated 18/07/2023.

¶38

In the meantime the Respondent Bank has assigned the loan to the M/s. CFM Asset Reconstruction Company who was impleaded as Respondent nos. 4a and 4b.

¶39

The Applicant has challenged the assignment by IA/1998/2023. M/s. CFM Asset Reconstruction Company has also filed IA/2079/2023 for substitution of M/s. CFM Asset Reconstruction Company in place of Respondent Bank.

¶40

This Tribunal vide order dated 07/02/2024 allowed IA/1998/2023 and dismissed IA/2079/2023 and directed the Applicant to implead the ARC as Respondent no. 4 in the SA. The order dated 07/02/2024 was not challenged by Appeal by any of the parties.so this order is final. As

¶41

¶42

per the order M/s. CFM Asset Reconstruction Company is added as Respondents no. 4a & 4b in the SA.

¶43

M/s. CFM Asset Reconstruction Company has filed an application being IA/2425/2024 for recall of the order dated 18/08/2023 but this IA was not pressed by Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 4. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant and Respondent no. 4a & 4b prayed for hearing of the SA and matter was fixed for final hearing of the SA, IA/1113/2022 and IA/1650/2023. Matter was finally heard on 21/05/2024.

¶44

This Sarfaesi Applicant has challenged the order of the Ld. CMM dated 18/07/2023 contending that there was no statutory compliance in the order dated 18/07/2023. Ld. CMM became ‘functious officio’ after passing the order dated 25/03/2022.

¶45

Ld. Senior Counsel for Respondent no. 4 has submitted that order dated 18/07/2023 is the implementation of the order which Ld. CMM is competent to pass as per provision of Section 14(2) of the Sarfaesi Act.

¶46

Perused the order dated 25/03/2022 which is annexed in IA/1650/2023. The order speaks that the Applicant has filed fresh affidavit confirming no stay order is in operation.

¶47

Ld. CMM has referred to the Demand Notice u/s 13 (2) demanding outstanding of Rs.28,29,36,894.28 and after 60 days Possession Notice was issued u/s 13(4) and at the time of final hearing of Application the

¶48

¶49

outstanding is Rs. 69,85,18,842.94/- and passed order directed the Head Assistant to take possession of the property.

¶50

Ld. CMM in the order dated 25/03/2022 observed that there was no stay order. Ld. CMM did not make any observation about the nine point’s affidavit by the Respondent Bank. The Applicant has also enclosed order of the Ld. CMM dated 18/07/2023. It is recorded in the order by Ld. CMM that order dated 25/03/2022 was not executed on pretext that one Board of “Consulate of Chile” was displayed at the outside wall of the 5^th floor of the said building for which the petitioner /Applicant could not taken physical possession of the property.

¶51

On the petition of the Respondent Bank, Ld. CMM has passed order 25/03/2022 & 03/06/2022 directing to take physical possession of the property. It is further stated that in the order dated 18/07/2023 after passing of the order as the matter was pending before DRT for which they could not take possession of the schedule property. It is also recorded that there was no stay in force.

¶52

Ld. CMM thereafter satisfied that the stay order was vacated by order dated 22/06/2023 and passed order for taking possession of the property.

¶53

Respondent Bank has filed affidavit in opposition to the IA/1113/2022. The Applicant also filed supplementary affidavit dated 14/08/2023. In the supplementary affidavit Respondent Bank deposed that on the basis of the order Ld. CMM Kolkata dated 18/07/2023, they have taken possession.

¶54

¶55

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant argued that in the affidavit filed by the Authorsed Officer of the Respondent Bank dated 17/07/2023 Respondent Bank has introduced some new facts. In the affidavit it is deposed that on the basis of the order of the Ld. CMM Respondent Bank with help of Head Assistant of the Ld. CMM tried to take possession of the property on 13/05/2022 but could not execute as the ground floor of the said premises has been occupied by Consulate of Chile on rent. But on enquiry it is ascertained about the status of the said Chile consulate and has been amazed to find the name of the Consulate of Chile at Kolkata Mr. Jugal Kishore Saraff who is the guarantor of loan granted by the Bank. On enquiry it is found that Government of Chile has not appointed any Consulate General from any Consulate of its own but has appointed Mr. Saraff to carry out the functions of the Consulate General from any place and Mr. Jugal Kishore Saraff is using the name plate of ‘Consulate of Chile’ in the mortgage property only purposefully to prevent to take the possession of the property. The Authorised Officer deposed in the affidavit that Mr. Jugal Kishore Saraff has no connection with the Embassy of Chile in India. The Authorised Officer further deposed that vide order dated 22/06/2023 interim order was already vacated and there is no bar to execute the order dated 25/03/2022 and 03/06/2022. These are the additional facts introduced by the Authorised Officer before the Ld. CMM by way of affidavit on 17/07/2023. Thereafter Ld. CMM has passed order on 18/07/2023.

¶56

Ld. Advocate for the Sarfaesi Applicant argued that introduction of new fact by affidavit and Ld. CMM passing order on 18/07/2023 is the

¶57

¶58

reassessment of earlier order which is in the nature of review of its own order.

¶59

Sarfaesi Applicant has filed Written Notes of argument and relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter of Krishna Builders And Developers ... vs Shriram Housing Finance Limited. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court at paragraph 61 observed as follows:

¶60

“ As regards the nine ‐ point satisfaction, it is not reflected even in a single sentence of the District Magistrate's order that the District Magistrate was satisfied with such nine points having been mentioned in the affidavit filed by the secured creditor. The specific language of the second proviso to Section 14 of the Act is that the Magistrate, "shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders ...... ". In the absence of any reflection of such satisfaction, the order under Section 14 is vitiated ex facie. Although no detailed inquiry as to the veracity of such nine points was perhaps required under the law, the Magistrate was duty bound to record satisfaction as to such points being mentioned in the affidavit. The purported reasons in the order of the Magistrate were entirely alien to a consideration under Section 14 and as such stood vitiated.”

¶61

Sarfaesi Applicant has relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S R.D. Jain And Co. vs Capital First Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 23 observed as follows:

¶62

“However, for taking physical possession of the secured assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor is obliged to approach the CMM/DM by way of a written application

¶63

¶64

requesting for taking possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and for being forwarded to it (secured creditor) for further action. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after receipt of a written application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act from the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order after verification of compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard, to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity.”

¶65

Sarfaesi Applicant has also relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and Others. Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 23,24 and 25 observed as follows:

¶66

“23. We must make it clear that these provisions were not in existence on the date of the order impugned in the instant proceedings. These amendments are made to provide safeguards to the interest of the borrower. These provisions stipulate that a secured creditor who is seeking the intervention of the Magistrate under Section 14 is required to file an affidavit furnishing the information contemplated under various sub-clauses (i) to (ix) of the proviso and obligates the Magistrate to pass suitable orders regarding taking of the possession of the secured assets only after being satisfied with the contents of the affidavits.

¶67

¶68

An analysis of the nine sub-clauses of the proviso which deal with the information that is required to be furnished in the affidavit filed by the secured creditor indicates in substance that:

¶69

24.1 (i) there was a loan transaction under which a borrower is liable to repay the loan amount with interest,

¶70

24.2 (ii) there is a security interest created in a secured asset belonging to the borrower,

¶71

24.3 (iii) that the borrower committed default in the repayment,

¶72

24.4 (iv) that a notice contemplated under Section 13(2) was in fact issued,

¶73

24.5 (v) in spite of such a notice, the borrower did not make the repayment,

¶74

24.6 (vi) the objections of the borrower had in fact been considered and rejected,

¶75

24.7 (vii) the reasons for such rejection had been communicated to the borrower, etc.

¶76

The satisfaction of the Magistrate contemplated under the second proviso to Section 14(1) necessarily requires the Magistrate to examine the factual correctness of the assertions made in such an affidavit but not the legal niceties of the transaction. It is only after recording of his satisfaction the Magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding taking of possession of the secured asset.”

¶77

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has further relied upon the judgment of Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal no. 13 of 2023 in the matter of Aditya Birla Finance Ltd & Anr vs. City Oil Pvt ltd. & Ors.

¶78

¶79

Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Kolkata at paragraph 15 observed as follows:

¶80

“15. In the order passed by the learned CJM I do not find any satisfaction on the compliance of aforesaid point. No doubt DM/CJM is not required to put verbatim copy of all the nine points, but at the same time order must reflect that he is satisfied about the compliance of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. When the CJM had considered the nine points separately then it was required for him to also deal with the issue of representation as well as result thereof, which was not done. As regards satisfaction, it is not reflected even in a single sentence in the order of the learned CJM. In the absence of such reflection and/or satisfaction, the order passed u/s 14 of the Act is vitiated ex facie. Although no detail discussion on all the nine points envisaged in Section 14 of the Act is required under the law, but the Magistrate is duty bound to record his satisfaction.”

¶81

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter of Tata Capital Financial Services ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court at paragraph 10,11 & 12 observed as follows:

¶82

“ The District Magistrate does not have power akin to an executing court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or any such parallel power to adjudicate or pass any incidental order reviewing its own order, recalling its own order and/or even staying its own order.

¶83

In fact, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the District Magistrate becomes functus officio once it disposes of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as in the present case.

¶84

¶85

In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated August 23, 2022 whereby the District Magistrate stayed the execution of his/her own order dated March 31, 2022 is palpably without jurisdiction and de hors the law and thus, is amenable to be set aside.”

¶86

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the matter of Gujarat Industrial Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. District Magistrate where in Hon’ble High Court has formulated the question whether after passing order under section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act can take step by subsequent order/direction for what ever is.

¶87

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh in the matter of Shriram Housing Finance Limited . . . . Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others. Hon’ble High Court has relied upon Division Bench order in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs. State of Haryana has considered the question “whether the District Magistrate is competent to ‘review’ his own order or the one passed by his predecessor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act? . and paragraph 27 itis held as under:

¶88

“(27) The powers exercisable by a District Magistrate under Section 14 are creation of a Statute. Those powers are required to be exercised within the four corners of the said provision. In the case in hand, the then District Magistrate, Sonepat rightly exercised such power and passed the order dated 08.02.2016 thereby directing his subordinate officer, namely, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate to take possession of the secured assets and hand over the same to

¶89

¶90

ARCIL. It could not be disputed by the learned State counsel or senior counsel for the borrowers that there is no provision under the SARFAESI Act under 5 of 10 which the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, can review, recall or modify his order. The successor District Magistrate, therefore, had no jurisdiction whatsoever either to entertain the borrower’s application dated 12.06.2016 or to pass the impugned orders dated 14.06.2016 and 24.10.2016. These orders are totally without jurisdiction and void ab initio, for it is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power and it must always be conferred by law either expressly or by necessary implication. The socalled reasons assigned by the successor District Magistrate, even if assumed to be correct, did not and cannot clothe him with a nonexistent power to review the order passed by him or his predecessor.

¶91

Ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondent no. 4 has filed Written Notes of argument and relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of C. Bright vs The District Collector. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the paragraph 21 held as under:

¶92

“The Act was enacted to provide a machinery for empowering banks and financial institutions, so that they may have the power to take possession of secured assets and to sell them. The DRT Act was first enacted to streamline the recovery of public dues but the proceedings under the said Act have not given desirous re- sults. Therefore, the Act in question was enacted. This Court in Mardia Chemical, Transcore and Hindon Forge Private Lim- ited has held that the purpose of the Act pertains to the speedy recovery of dues, by banks

¶93

¶94

and financial institutions. The true in- tention of the Legislature is a determining factor herein. Keeping the objective of the Act in mind, the time limit to take action by the District Magistrate has been fixed to impress upon the authority to take possession of the secured assets. However, inability to take possession within time limit does not render the District Mag- istrate Functus Officio. The secured creditor has no control over the District Magistrate who is exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act for public good to facilitate recovery of public dues. Therefore, Section 14 of the Act is not to be interpreted literally without considering the object and purpose of the Act. If any other interpretation is placed upon the language of Section 14, it would be contrary to the purpose of the Act. The time limit is to instill a confidence in creditors that the District Magistrate will make an attempt to deliver possession as well as to impose a duty on the Dis- trict Magistrate to make an earnest effort to comply with the man- date of the statute to deliver the possession within 30 days and for reasons to be recorded within 60 days. In this light, the remedy under Section 14 of the Act is not rendered redundant if the Dis- trict Magistrate is unable to handover the possession. The District Magistrate will still be enjoined upon, the duty to facilitate delivery of possession at the earliest.”

¶95

Ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondent no. 4a and 4b has relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the matter of Bajaj Finance Ltd vs M/S. Ali Agency And Others. Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the paragraph 10 held as under:

¶96

“10. Having heard both the sides and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the present case, we find that the following issues would arise for consideration of this Court :-

¶97

¶98

i. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in view of the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002?

¶99

ii. ii. Whether Chief Judicial Magistrate would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002?

¶100

iii. Scope of exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned, while examining an application under Section 14 of the Securitization Act, 2002.

¶101

iv. Relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to in the instant petition.

¶102

Hon’ble Orissa High Court has answered the issue no. 1 and held that writ petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶103

With regard to issue no. 2 Hon’ble Orissa High Court has held that after obtaining order of Ld. CJM, he can entertain further application u/s 14 of the Sarfaesi Act and would be entitled to pass orders.

¶104

With regard to issue no 3 Hon’ble Orissa High Court has held

¶105

that:

¶106

“ The satisfaction of the Magistrate contemplated under the second proviso to Section 14(1) necessarily requires the Magistrate to examine the factual correctness of the assertions made in such an affidavit but not the legal niceties of the transaction. It is only after 2013 (6) SCC 690 recording of his satisfaction the Magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding taking of possession of the secured asset.“

¶107

¶108

From the decision relied by the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant as well as the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent no. 4a & 4b Ld. CMM has to express satisfaction on the nine points on the affidavit filed by the Respondent Bank in the order dated 25/03/2022. Ld. CMM has not recorded satisfaction on the nine points rather passed order that there is no stay order. Ld. CMM has not expressed satisfaction in order dated 25/03/2022 and the said order is not sustainable.

¶109

Respondent Bank has filed subsequent affidavit on new facts which the Ld. CMM has considered and passed order dated 18/07/2023 observing that stay order has been vacated and passed order directing for taking possession from the Borrower and to deliver the same to the Respondent Bank. Second order is passed on new fact which the ld. CMM has considered to implement the order dated 25/03/2022. Ld. CMM can pass fresh order but cannot reassess the fact and pass subsequent order for implementation of order dated 25/03/2022 which is not sustainable as per provision of Section 14 of the sarfaesi Act.

¶110

It is argued by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondent no. 4a and 4b that Ld. CMM by this order dated 18/07/2023 implemented the order dated 25/03/2022 as per provision of Section 14(2). Ld. CMM can implement impleaded the order but cannot reassess the facts in the second order. Therefore, the order dated 25/03/2022 and 18/07/2023 are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is ordered as follows:

¶111

O R D E R

¶112

i) S.A/172/2022 is allowed on contest against the Respondents.

¶113

ii) IA/1113/2022 and IA/1650/2023 are allowed on contest against the Respondents.

¶114

¶115

iii) Sarfaesi actions of the respondents under section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act such as order of the Ld. CMM dated 25/03/2022 and 18/07/2023 are not sustainable. The possession of the secured property taken by the respondents is required to be restored to the applicant.

¶116

iv) Respondents are directed to restore the possession of the secured property to the Sarfaesi Applicant within 10 days.

¶117

v) Consequently, other pending I.A.s , if any, are also disposed of.

¶118

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶119

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶120

(Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 3^rd July, 2024.

¶121

(Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer

¶122

¶123

	Order Sheet (continuation)
Case NO. SA	/172/2022 MACHINEWORKS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITE INDIAN BANK & ORS	D vs.
Date of the Order	Order with Signature	Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
03/07/2024	Present:
	For Applicant : Mr. Souritra Ganguly, Mr. Avishek Guha, Mr. D. Basu Roy, Ld. Advocates
	For Respondent Bank : Ms. Akakini Sen, Ld. Advocate
	For Respondent Nos. 4a &4b:Mr. Abhrajit Mitra,Sr. Counsel Mr. D. Karmakar, Mr. Rajshree Kajaria, Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, Mr. Abir Lal Ghosh and Mr. Pradip Sancheti ….. Ld. Advocates For the Official Liquidator : Ms. Jeenat Shabab Ld. Advocate and Mr. Sanjit Kr.Nayak
	Matter was heard in open Court on this the day of 21.5.2024.
	The detailed order in eighteen pages annexed separately. The gist of the order is as follows:
	O R D E R
	i) S.A/172/2022 is allowed on contest against the Respondents.
	ii) IA/1113/2022 and IA/1650/2023 are allowed on contest against the Respondents.
	iii) Sarfaesi actions of the respondents under section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act such as order of the Ld. CMM
	dated 25/03/2022 and 18/07/2023 are not sustainable. The possession of the secured property

¶124

¶125

		Order Sheet (continuation)
Case NO.	SA/172/20	22 MACHINEWORKS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITE INDIAN BANK & ORS	D vs.
Date of the Order		Order with Signature	Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
		taken by the respondents is required to be restored to the applicant.
	iv)	Respondents are directed to restore the possession of the secured property to the Sarfaesi Applicant within 10 days.
	v)	Consequently, other pending I.A.s ,if any, are also disposed of.
		Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
	(Dictat pronou 2024.	File is consigned to the Record Room. ed to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and nced by me in the open Court on this the day 3^rdJuly,
		(Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer

Machinewworks International Limited v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machinewworks International Limited 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

Sri Sourav Sanyal and Anr. versus Hdfc Bank

Yes Bank versus Sushil Kumar Yadav

Yes Bank versus Abdul Hadis

Idbi Bank versus Joydeep Roy Chowdhary

Canara Bank versus Sri Shreyans Kumar Raijada

Aparna Sar and Anr. versus South Indian Bank