Remanded

Sajjan Kumar Halwai v. India Sme Asset Reconstruction Compnay

DRT22 Apr 2025APPEAL/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, disposed of an appeal by remanding the matter to the Recovery Officer. The Tribunal found irregularities regarding unconsidered objections and the sale of 36 shops before the objection application was finalized. The Tribunal ordered a remand for merits, disposed of the auction purchaser's withdrawal application, and directed the return of the deposit amount.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to Recovery Officer; deposit of Rs. 86.00 Lac returned; Auction purchaser's application withdrawn; Status quo maintained for auction purchaser.

Sajjan Kumar Halwai versus India Sme Asset Reconstruction… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 20

¶3

Case No. APPEAL/5/2022

¶4

SAJJAN KUMAR HALWAI Vs INDIA SME ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

¶5

COMPNAY

¶6

Date: 22.04.2025.

¶7

Proceedings through hybrid mode

¶8

Present:

¶9

Shri Madhav Mitra Senior Advocate along with Shri Jai Sharma and Shri Akshat Khandelwal, Counsel for the Applicant

¶10

Shri Arvind Gupta, Counsel along with Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, Chief Manager Law for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶11

Shri Vedpriya Arya, Counsel for the auction purchaser

¶12

In compliance of Section 30 A, DDs of Rs. 86.00 Lac are given, the same be kept by Registry in interest bearing account. Appeal Admitted.

¶13

Appeal is taken up for hearing.

¶14

One of the contentions of the applicant is without deciding his delay condonation application, his Rule 60 application was dismissed on 19.04.2022. He fairly submits that application under Rule 61 was filed and then it was dismissed thereafter only after they could have moved Rule 60 application, but as an offshoot of dismissal of Rule 61 application, they reached Hon’ble High Court and after withdrawing the same, this Rule 60 application was filed.

¶15

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶16

The Tribunal feels that judicial decorum demands that delay condonation application should have been heard approximately before dismissing Rule 60 application, keeping in view time spent before Hon’ble High Court.

¶17

There is further submission that 36 shops were sold by the appellant and out of those 36 shops, 18 shops owners have filed objection under Rule 61. “Those objections were allowed and accordingly, those were exempted from auction”. Auction notice was neither withdrawn nor amended. According to the appellant as per Rule 62(3), if any objection is allowed, the property has to be re-auctioned. However, according to him, the Recovery Officer has proceeded on the basis of an affidavit filed by the auction purchaser that they have no objection if only balance property is given to them at the same price.

¶18

Those No objections were given against the payment of 1000 per square ft. for all 36 shops and I could not find mentioning of those 18 remaining shops in any orders of the Recovery Officer. Therefore, it was the duty of the Recovery Officer to decide about those NOCs. Though appellant has taken Tribunal through the various other orders regarding possession and other things, but specific question was whether valuation report shows the sale of these 36 shops or not. It does not show, further valuation is done of residential property & not commercial property. The suspicion is related as purchaser has willingly accepted the property minus 18 shops.

¶19

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶20

The main grievance is that he has not been properly heard, his arguments were not acknowledged nor his application for condonation of delay has been decided appropriately.

¶21

The Tribunal asked the Counsel for the applicant if the matter may be remanded back to Recovery Officer for appropriate hearing. It is submitted that since the sale certificate has been issued and sale has been registered, so it may be an impediment for Recovery Officer to hear the case, since the delay condonation application was not decided appropriately.

¶22

The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Recovery Officer shall hear the arguments as on date when the delay condonation application was moved.

¶23

This Tribunal has been appraised by the Counsel for the Respondent no. 1 that the delay condonation application was dealt with, however, it is felt that since simultaneous remedies could not have been sought under Rule 60 and Rule 61.

¶24

This argument can be taken before the Recovery Officer that why Rule 60 application is not maintainable. Moreover, when the property which is put to auction was not available to the Recovery Officer in view of the sale of 36 shops, I deem it fit to remand back the matter to the Recovery Officer for fresh consideration in the light of the fact that sale of 36 shops has taken place even before finalization of the OA itself.

¶25

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶26

Those 36 shops were sold, NOCs were issued and since only he also has to consider application Rule 60 and Rule 63(2), why the auction was not set aside? When sale of 36 shops was brought to notice of Recovery Officer? Matter be disposed of within two months time from date of the order being provided to all the parties.

¶27

Shri Akhil Kumar Singh, Senior Chief Manager Legal (Kolkata) for Respondent no. 1 have joined the hearing through VC and was asked about the remanding back of the matter. He states that on merits it can be done by the Tribunal.

¶28

Counsel for the Auction Purchaser has also stated that Tribunal can decide the matter on merits or it can be remanded back.

¶29

Accordingly, matter is remanded back on the merits. Counsel for the Auction Purchaser has filed an application and he submits that he wish to withdraw this application as there was some misunderstanding of the discussion which took place during course of proceedings.

¶30

Request is allowed.

¶31

IA filed by the auction purchase stands disposed off as withdrawn.

¶32

In the beginning, this Tribunal has ordered the Registry to keep the DDs of Rs. 86.00 Lac, now the same may be returned.

¶33

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶34

Counsel for the appellant also moved an application before this Tribunal to get his earlier DD’s being converted to FDs. Let him move an appropriate application before the Recovery Officer or he can make an oral prayer before him.

¶35

This remanding back is more important as this Tribunal has noted while going through the record, even auction money is not given to Respondent as on date.

¶36

Let the money be retained like this. Final orders may be passed by the Recovery Officer. Auction purchaser is directed to maintain status quo as of today as the matter is remanded back.

¶37

With the above said directions, Appeal stands disposed off. All pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any. Matter be listed before Recovery Officer on 29.04.2025.

¶38

File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website. Copy of the order be given to all parties and send to Recovery Officer concerned.

¶39

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

Sajjan Kumar Halwai v. India Sme Asset Reconstruction Compnay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Kumar Halwai v. India Sme Asset Reconstruction Compnay

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ramesh Yadav

Punjab National Bank versus Satvindra Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Lichhi

Mahendra Singh Ahada versus Srg Housing Finance Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Juhuru

M S Kamla Trading Company versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited