Dismissed

The Agarpara Company Limited and Anr. v. State Bank of India

DRT18 Nov 2024SA/924/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Special Application filed against a sale notice that became infructuous as the scheduled sale did not take place due to lack of bids. The court held the petition was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The Special Application 924/2024 was dismissed on the ground that it lacked maintainability as the sale notice had become infructuous.

The Agarpara Company Limited and Anr. versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III KOLKATA

¶3

PRESENT: .SRI KAMAL DE.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER.

¶5

S.A. No. 924 OF 2024 (Order no.5) oATE OF OELIVERY OF ORDER : tB.tL.2O24

¶6

The Agarpara Company Limited .

¶7

Ghanshyam Sarda

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

State Bank of India 2. l.:ln::'*o^{omcer, state Bankor rndia} 3. sun Biotechnology Limited

...

...

Applicants

Defendants.

Counsel for the SA Applicant:

¶15

¶16

T,lf #;lillill,,a^{(virtuar Mode)}

¶17

Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2- Bank ; Ms. M. Kanji nsel for respondent no. 3 : None

¶18

ORDER

¶19

;g:j."r'.'.';,'ff ?",.rr';;H:,j,

¶20

;l,r:T:ff1 , tot - o"oo,nun, rires arfidavit in opposition on the poinr or

¶21

tfi,,htrsfirtrfrHffi,H r even by private

¶22

l*{,##",,"".,..,{',:5"'.;"Jffi H:r"l3:ig:ifl :., j.:IJ""I,:?,fl , fr #ffi $*;lffi ;[l,;*tf $ii-i,,ffi

¶23

i,J"";;n. ,t1";;f:f,"ffi,,f#?:?3:^ * record incrudine averments and

¶24

sal924l2024

¶25

It appears that SA is filed solely^{as against the sale noticedated l3/Ogl24} under rule 8(6) and its^publication dated^{23109/24under rule 9(1) fixingsale on} 05/t!124.

¶26

Ld, Counsel for respondent bank submits that^{according to the information} received from the authorised officer of the^{respondentbanksale did not takeplace} on o5/1U24 for want of bid and^{purported sale noticedated 13/08/24 became} infructuous as reflected vide order no.3 dated 04llll2o24^{of this tribunal.}

¶27

It is a trite^proposition of law if borrower or any^{personis aggrievedby any action} taken bythebank under the Sarfaesi Act they can challenge^{withinaperiodof45} days from the date of action. It is also^{given to} understand^{during hearingby ld.} Lawyer for defendant bank that^possession notice^is dated^{lOlO6l2OfLand no SA} was flled challenging the 13(4) notice dated 10/06/2011.

¶28

In my opinion SA was filed challenging the sale notice dated 13/a124 and sale did not take place on O5lll/24 and as a sequel it goes without saying that the petitioners approached the DRT u/s 17 of Sarfaesi Act, 2002 challenginq the purported sale dated o5llu24 which did not take place.

¶29

The applicant for the purpose of limitation has taken the date of sale notice dated B/OA/24 and its publication dated 23/Og/24 and fil6 i'he SA on 2A/n/2O24.

¶30

SA the SA challenged the sale notice was within a period of limitation but SA applicant has not challenged the possession notice u/s 13 (4) . Therefore, as the sale notice dated 13/OA/24 has become infructuous this SA is not maintainable.

¶31

It is worthy to point out that the present SA is not flled challenging the possession notice and the SA applicant has filed the SA challenging the sale notice dated l3/OBl24, when the sale ended into a fiasco due to want of bid.

¶32

SA applicant has not also challenged the demand notice dated 04l1t/21tt and possession notice dated 10/06/20ll.

¶33

Considering all aspects I think that the instant SA/924/2O24 is not maintainable.

¶34

Moreover, Tribunal cannot pass any order on the future course of action by defendant bank as approached from the side of SA applicant. This tribunal cannot restrain the defendant bank from proceeding to recover its legitimate dues as per law.

¶35

Considering all aspects I think no cause of action survives as sale notice has become infructuous and ended in fiasco.

¶36

Hence ordered,

¶37

(1) The instant SAI924/2O24 is dismissed on contest on the preliminary issue of maintainability.

¶38

(2) All other pending IAs, if any , are also dismissed accordingly.

¶39

Copy of the Judgement/Final Order be upload in the Tribunal,s website. File be consigned to the Record Room after observing all formalities.

¶40

( KAMAL DE ) PRESIDING OFFICER.

The Agarpara Company Limited and Anr. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Agarpara Company Limited and Anr. v. State Bank of India

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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Sanjeev Chowdhury and Anr.

Joy Bandhu Mukherjee and Anr. versus Bank of India

Sri Sanjoy Ray and Anr. versus Uco Bank

Canara Bank versus Nilanjan Biswas

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Tania Engineering Works

Indian Overseas Bank versus Rita Singh Roy and Anr.