Dismissed

M/S Abinava Info Systems Private Limited and Anr. v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Gauhati HC7 Apr 2022WP(C)/2508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Gauhati High Court refused to entertain a challenge to an eviction notice issued by the Recovery Officer. The Court held that the applicant has an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not entertained; the petitioner is directed to approach the Tribunal for relief.

M/S Abinava Info Systems Private Limited and Anr. Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010066242022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2508/2022

¶5

M/S ABINAVA INFO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR LAKHIMI PATH, BELTOLA TINIALI, GUWAHATI-78028, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUNDER BURAGOHAIN.

¶6

2: SRI SUNDAR BURAGOHAIN SON OF LATE JANARDAN BURAGOHAIN R/O FLAT NO. 1-F PARAMANANDA ENCLAVE JANAPATH FARM GATE

¶7

KHANAPARA GUWAHATI ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR

¶10

HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021 AND ITS LOCAL HEAD OFFICE AT DISPUR, P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM

¶11

2:STATE BANK OF INDIA ITANAGAR BRANCH BANK TINIALI DISTRICT PAPUM PARE ARUNACHAL PRADESH REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R BORA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 07-04-2022

¶18

Heard Mr. K.R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶19

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking interference in respect of a notice for eviction passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati on 13.01.2022.

¶20

From the pleadings in the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioner no. 1 company where the petitioner no. 2 is the Managing Director, had availed a loan of cash credit. In course of time, the petitioner no. 1 company defaulted in repaying the loan amount. The respondent no. 1 bank issued demand notice to the petitioners who were the borrowers. The respondent no. 1 bank had filed an original application being O.A. no. 10/2006 under Section 19[1] of the then Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, [the then RDDBFI Act, 1993] before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati. The original application, O.A. no. 10/2006 was disposed of by an order dated 30.11.2007. The learned Tribunal had issued a recovery certificate in favour of the respondent no. 1 bank against 3 [three] defendants including the present 2 [two] petitioners, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,45,839.59/- together with future interest @ of 12.35% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization with cost of the application. Pursuant to the said order of the learned Tribunal, a certificate under Section 22 was issued by the learned Tribunal to the Recovery Officer to realize the amount as per the certificate in the manner and mode prescribed under Section 25 and Section 28 of the then

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

RDDBFI Act, 1993, now renamed as the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 from the Certificate Debtors including the present 2 [two] petitioners. Thereafter, a compromise proposal was submitted on behalf of the petitioners. By an order dated 13.01.2022, the Recovery Officer, in terms of Section 15 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, has ordered that the Tribunal would take physical possession of the attached/mortgaged property owned by certificate debtors by evicting them and all other occupants from the property. It is pursuant to the said order, the impugned notice of eviction has been issued by the Recovery Officer whereby the property described in the schedule therein has been attached by the Tribunal and an attachment has been proclaimed as per the letter for recovery for a sum of Rs. 40,45,839.59/- together with future interest @ of 12.35% per annum.

¶23

The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is a self contending mode. Section 30 of the said Act has provided an appeal against an order of the Recovery Officer. Section 30[1] of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 which starts with a non-obstante clause, has provided that any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under the Act may, within 30 [thirty] days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.

¶24

In view of the availability of such alternate statutory remedy of appeal, this writ petition is not entertained. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Tribunal seeking relief in respect of the notice of eviction issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

Comparing Assistant

M/S Abinava Info Systems Private Limited and Anr. v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Abinava Info Systems Private Limited and Anr. v. State Bank of India and Anr.

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

Sashi Mohan Sarkar Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 4 Ors.

NO.30 Goma Gaon Panchayat and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bichitra Sarma and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Nilakanta Baruah and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Golap Ali and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.