Dismissed

Grid India Power Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Bank

DRT22 Jul 2025SA/64/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the respondent bank's application to dismiss a stay application as infructuous after the bank withdrew notices under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that no voucher was required to adjudicate validity and denied a plea for compensation.

What did the court decide?

The stay application was declared infructuous; the file was consigned to records.

Grid India Power Cables Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

sAl6412024

¶3

M/S. GRID INDIA POWER CABLES PvT LTD & ORSVSINDUIil BANK&ANR.

¶4

Reserved on:.07.07.2025

¶5

Pronounced on:. 22.07.2025

¶6

Present:

¶7

Mr. Amit Dhall, Counsel for applicant.

¶8

Mr. Pradeep Pandey, Counsel for respondent bank.

¶9

Matter is taken through V.C./Hybrid mode.

¶10

IA no. 475812024 has been filed on behalf of the respondent bank requesting therein to dispose off the present SA No.64 of 2024 as infructuous post withdrawal of notices issued to the respondent bank under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) under SARFEASI Act, 2002.

¶11

The LC. Counsel of respondent bank has submitted that the applicant M/s Grid India Power Cables tut Ltd has filed the present SA before this Honble Tribunal challenging the entire SARFAESI actions initiated by the respondent bank in respect of secured properties situated at the addresses i.e., (A) No 121, Ground Floor, Block A- 2, Janakpuri, New Delhi. (B) Factory land and building at Plot No 63, Sector-5. Chaudhary Devilal IMT Manesar. (C) Industrial land and building at Khasra No 3502; 3503;3499;3500, V& PO Singan, Tehsil Haroli, Disft Una (Himachal Pradesh) and (D) Industrial land and building at Khasra No 34569, V & PO Singan, Tehsil Haroli, Distt Una Himachal Pradesh. The respondent bank had earlier issued notice to the applicant on 31.10.2023 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Ac., 2002, after which the other actions under the SARFAESI Ac.,2002 were initiated by the respondent bank. Subsequent to issuing the notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI 4ctJ002 datecj 31.10.2023, f,\

¶12

¶13

the respondent bank had also issued a Notice u/s 13(4) to the applicants on 17.0L.2024. The Hon'ble DRT-II by an order dated 21.03.2024 restrained the respondent bank from taking any further action in the matter by^partly allowing the SA under reference. It is submitted that the respondent bank had issued another notice under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 0t.06.2027. This was the first notice issued to the applicants for the pending dues u/s 13(2). The respondent bank also issued notice to the applicant on 16.09.2021 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI ACr.,2002, subsequent to issuing the Notice u/s 13(2) dated 01.06.2021. It is further submitted that aggrieved by the notice u/s 13(2) dated 01.06.2021 and notice under Section 13(4) under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the applicants approached the Hon'ble DRT-II through an SA no. t07 of 2022.Ihe Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2023, allowed the SA No 107 of 2022 and set aside all actions taken by the respondent bank in pursuance to notice u/s 13(2) dated 01.06.2021 and notice u/s 13(4) dated 16.09.2021. The respondent bank has withdrawn all the four Notices vide its letter addressed to the applicant M/s Grid India Power Cable h/t Ltd and its Directors Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Smt. Anu Gupta vide its letter dated 17.10.2024.It is further submitted that the bank in its letter dated 17.10.2024 through which it has withdrawn all the four notices mentioned above and withdrawn the said notices by mentioning "without prejudice in the matters connected thereto before any legal authority to our rights and contentions before any legal authority or Couft as the case may be". After the withdrawal of the above notices issued to the applicant in SA 64 of 2024 by the respondent bank the cause of action for the applicant M/s Grid India Power Cablq tut ttd. has ceased to exist

¶14

¶15

¶16

and the present Case No 5A16412024 has been rendered infructuous. It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may allow the present applications and declare the^present SA No. 64 of 2024 as infructuous and closed in view of the withdrawal of the above notices.

¶17

The Ld. Counsel of applicants has submitted that the present application filed by the respondent bank is nothing but an abuse of the process of law particularly for the reason that the respondent bank has already filed the reply to the main S.A and thus the / Hon'ble Tribunal is required to adjudicate the measures initiated by the respondent bank under Section 13 of the Securitisation Act including the wrongful classification of the account as NPAn contrary to the RBI guidelines, therefore, the present application filed by the respondent bank is liable to be disallowed and rejected. It is further submitted that the present application filed by the respondent bank is liable to be rejected solely on the ground that the respondent bank has admitted the facts in their application that the respondent bank had initiated the measures under section 13 of the Securitisation Act, which is in violation of the provisions of the Securitisation Act, therefore, the applicants are entitled for the cost of litigation, court fees as well as the penalties, as mentioned in Section 27 of the Securitisation Act and, therefore, the present application is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the present application filed by the respondent bank deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground that this Hon'ble Tribunal is required to consider, adjudicate the present SA in terms of Section 17(2) (3)(a) to (c) read with Section 2 (OXb) of the Securitisation Act as the respondent bank has wrongly classified the account as NpA contrary to the RBI guidelines, which requires torbe adjudicated in the SA

¶18

¶19

¶20

filed by the applicant under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation Act, therefore, the application deseryes to be rejected at the threshold only. It is^prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may dismiss the present application filed by the respondent bank and adjudicate the SA on account of the wrongful classification of the account as NPA by the respondent bank on 27.7t.2020 and as the respondent bank has not complied with the RBI guidelines pursuant to the final order dated 20.10.2023, passed in SA No.L0712022, urhich needs to be adjudicated in the present S.A.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the record

¶22

The main contention of the Ld. counsel of the respondent is that the respondent bank has withdrawn the notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act against which the present SA has been filed. It is submitted that the SA has become infructuous as the notice has been withdrawn. On the other hand the Ld. counsel of the SA applicant has submitted that the respondent bank has declared the account of the applicant as NPA against the guidelines issued by the RBI and the notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are against the facts of the case and therefore, the SA may be heard on merit and the IA of the respondent may be dismissed. From perusal of the record it is clear that the respondent bank has issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and subsequently issued notice under Section 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved by the actions of the respondent bank the applicant has filed the present SA. Now the respondent bank has withdrawn both the notices

¶23

¶24

¶25

issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act this Tribunal has to see as to whether the notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) are in accordance with the SARFAESI Act or not and if the^possession has been taken or property has been auctioned, to see whether the possession and auction has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and SARFAESI Rules. In the present matter the respondent bank has himself withdrawn the notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, there is no occasion to check the validity of these notices and declare that these notices are invalid or illegal. In such circumstances, the IA of the respondent is liable to be allowed.

¶26

The neyt contention of the Ld. counsel of the applicant is that in case the IA of the respondent bank is allowed, he may be compensated with cost under Section 27 of the SARFAESI Act. In this regard I have perused Section 27 of the SARFAESI Act. From perusal of Section 27 of the SARFAESI Act it is clear that it provides the penalties where there is violation of Section 23, Section 24 or Section 25 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 23, Section 24 and Section 25 deals with the registration of the secured asset with the Central Registry. Therefore, Section 27 of the SARFAESI Act does not authorize this Tribunal to award compensation if the notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are being withdrawn by the secured creditor. Therefore, this Tribunal has no authority to award compensation under Section 27 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

IA no. 475812024 is allowed. The SA no. 64 of 2024 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶31

File be consigned to records.

¶32

.-,-''-'---..-+-..-\ C s.).{

¶33

Dated: 22.07.2025

¶34

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Grid India Power Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Grid India Power Cables Pvt. Ltd. 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