Afflicted with an applicant seeking recall of a judgment in a sale application challenging an auction sale and securitization proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the money application, finding no merit, insufficient evidence of heard requests, and no prejudice caused by the manner of hearing the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
| Dateoforderor proceeding |
r | Officeaction takenwith date |
|---|---|---|
| MANo.68/2023 27.11.2025 SINo.01. -/ Z/ a/ |
This order is disposing oftheM.A.No. 68/2023. This MA has been brought by the applicant for recalling the orderdated 20.04.2023 passed in S.A. No. 252/2017 detailedas M/s Chemco AsphaltIndiaVs. StateBankofIndia. rb-k Aprayerhasbeenmadekan opportunityof hearing be given tothe applicant. Written Subissions hasbeen filedbyboththeparties. I have heard Ld counsel for the applicant, respondent bank andauction purchaser. It is submitted that on 15.02.2023 arguments for respondent bankand auction purchaser wascompletedand matter was reserved for order.Ithasbeen observedinthe order sheet thatapplicant may arguethecaseinthemeantime. The main grievance of theapplicant \b- beingthat:several specific datesLd \r counsel for theapplicantmovedfor hearing of the case butthejudgment was prononounced on 20.04.2023 without givinganyopportunityof argumentstothe applicant. Thus,maingrievances oftheapplicant beingthatjudgment dated20.04.2023 was passed by this Tribunal without affording any oralopporetunityofargumentstothe Ld counsel for the applicant.. The plea of the applicant hinges around the fact thathe :iI |
UPa
argue the matter and it was mentioned by him several times that matter be heard, any proof thereof has not been filed by the applicant.
I have considered the alternate statement, as well.The SA was brought by the applicant for setting aside the auction sale dated 16.05.2017 as well as the entire securitzation proceedings initiated by the respondent bank. Admittedly the applicant had taken Cash Credit Limit facility of Rs. 115.00 Lacs from the respondent bank, which he could not pay. It is stated that without mentioning the date of NPA in the demand notice dated 02.05.2016, it was served upon the applicant and it was not served individualy to the applicant no. 2. Similarly, the possession and sale notice was not served upon the applicants.
It has been found by the Tribunal that applicants admitted that they have committed default in making payment and the applicant himself had annexed letters written by the bank requesting the applicant to regularirze the loan account. But applicant did not actog upon regarding the same. As far as possession notice is concerned it has been found that it has been served upon the applicant. The Tribunal has further observed that SA itself is barred by limitation, it has been found that sale was made after compliance of statutory rules and the bank is rightfully delivered the physical possession of the property in question to the auction purcasher after issuande of sale certifricate.
In view of above facts and discussions
\ b
I find that any prejudice has not been caused to the applicant even if the oral arguments was not heard by this Tribunal. Furthermore, I find that sufficient opportunity was given to the applicant for submissions of oral arguments.
I find and hold that by the judgment dated 15.02.20231,any prejudice has not been caused to the applicant and I do not find any merit in the M.A.
Accordingly, the MA is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Record be consigned to record room. Pending I.A. if any, also disposed off. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website. (Dictated) b (Pravas KurmF Singh) Presiding Officer (Manoj)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of the money application for violation of natural justice given lack of opportunity for oral arguments on the impugned judgment.
Whether the applicant, who failed to produce proof of multiple requests for hearing, suffered prejudice due to the non-oral hearing of the impugned judgment.
Whether the sale and records in the underlying sale application were barred by limitation or compliant with statutory rules.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Chemco Asphalt India
State Bank of India
Auction Purchaser
Praveen Kumar Sinha
Manoj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
