Allowed

Krishan Kumar Gupta Alias Krishan Lal v. Bank of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Oct 2022CWP/24791/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Debts Recovery Tribunal's dismissal of a special application as infructuous without hearing arguments on the main application. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the dismissal, remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, and directed maintenance of status quo under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the special application as infructuous set aside; matter remitted to the Tribunal for decision after hearing both sides within three months; status quo in SARFAESI proceedings maintained.

Krishan Kumar Gupta Alias Krishan Lal Vs Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

�� 

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

124 CWP-24791 of 2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.10.2022

¶4

Krishan Kumar Gupta @ Krishan Lal

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bank of India and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

¶10

Present: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate with Mr. A.P.S. Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J. (Oral)

¶12

Notice of motion.

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Devender Rattan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent/caveator No.1, Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2, and Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Goyal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not press for any relief against respondent No.4. Therefore, respondent No.4 is deleted as party respondent in the matter.

¶15

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.5 on 28.09.2022 in SA-59-2021. The said SA was filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶16

SUMIT KUMAR 2022.11.01 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

��

¶18

��

¶19

��

¶20

�� !��"�� !��"��

¶21

�� #��

¶22

��$�� %�&'(�

¶23

��)��+��$�� +��$��

¶24

��$�� '�

¶25

��#��

¶26

The petitioner had filed an interim application in the SA. The petitioner had also sought interim relief for staying the sale to be held by respondent No.1-Bank pursuant to an auction cum sale notice dt. 12.02.2021.

¶27

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, interim relief was granted on 16.03.2021, staying the auction cum sale pursuant to the notice dt. 12.02.2021 till further orders. Thereafter, IA-522-2022 was filed by respondent No.1 for vacating the said order.

¶28

On 05.09.2022, arguments were heard in the IA-522-2022

¶29

SUMIT KUMAR 2022.11.01 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶30

�� 

¶31

for vacation of the stay, and a docket order was passed that the matter would be listed on 06.09.2022 for pronouncement of the order on the said IA.

¶32

The matter was then taken up on 20.09.2022, and adjourned to 22.09.2022 again for hearing arguments in the IA.

¶33

Then on 28.09.2022, respondent No.5 not only allowed IA522-2022 filed by respondent No.1-Bank, but went on to dismiss the SA itself as infructuous.

¶34

This is assailed in the writ petition by the petitioner.

¶35

Counsel for the petitioner contends that arguments in the SA were never heard, and only the arguments in the IA were heard, and the docket dt. 05.09.2022 confirms this fact, and the Tribunal had indicated its mind only to decide the said IA, and to pronounce order in the said IA on 06.09.2022, and so the Tribunal could not have decided the main SA on 28.09.2022 without hearing argument in the SA.

¶36

Though counsel for the respective respondents contend that the main SA itself was argued before the Tribunal, the docket dt. 05.09.2022 of the Tribunal does not support their contention.

¶37

We are of the opinion that when the Tribunal had heard only arguments in the IA-522-2022 as evidenced by the docket dt. 05.09.2022, and intended to pronounce orders only in the IA as per said docket order, respondent No.5 could not have decided the main SA, and any submissions made by the applicant in support of the order for stay could not have been taken as arguments in the main SA. Merely looking at the

¶38

SUMIT KUMAR 2022.11.01 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶39

�� 

¶40

clauses in the prayer, the Tribunal could not have proceeded to hold that the SA itself had become infructuous without noting other contentions raised including the contention raised in para No.25 of the SA regarding the mention in the sale notice of the land as freehold which is an issue pending consideration before the NCLT, and which is adverted to in the order dt. 16.03.2021 passed by respondent No.5.

¶41

Anyway we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties at this stage, but we are of the opinion that the disposal by the Tribunal of the SA itself as infructuous on 28.09.2022 was not warranted when the Tribunal had heard only arguments in IA522-2022.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that respondent No.5 had dismissed the SA-59-2021 as infructuous; the said order to that extent is set aside. The SA is remitted back to DRT-II, Chandigarh and shall be decided by the said Tribunal after hearing both sides within three months from today.

¶43

All contentions of parties are left open for consideration.

¶44

Till the SA is decided, status quo in all respects qua proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 shall be maintained with regard to the secured asset.

¶45

(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO) JUDGE

¶46

28.10.2022		(H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned :	Yes No
	Whether Reportable :	Yes No

¶47

SUMIT KUMAR 2022.11.01 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Krishan Kumar Gupta Alias Krishan Lal v. Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar Gupta Alias Krishan Lal v. Bank of India and Ors.

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

M/S U.K Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs Central Bank of India

Ujjagar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nyati Healthcare and Research Ncr Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Gurdev Singh and Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

M/S Guru Nanak Trading Company and Anr. Vs Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Surinder Kumar Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.