Appeal Sr. No. 48 of 2015. Case: Bank of Baroda and Ors. Vs Bhagwandeen Cold Storage & Allied Industries and Ors.. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal Sr. No. 48 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Maneesh Mehrotra, Advocate and For Respondents: Vineet Kumar and Amit Verma, Advocates |
| Judges | V.K. Mathur, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1Order XLVII Rule 47; Section 114; Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4), 17, 18 |
| Judgement Date | July 18, 2016 |
| Court | Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
V.K. Mathur, J. (Chairperson)
-
The present Appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Bank under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'] against the judgment dated 5th March, 2015 passed by the learned DRT, Lucknow, wherein the review application No. 02/2014 filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and the judgment dated 7th May, 2014 in securitisation application No. 483/2014 was set aside. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent No. 1 which is a proprietorship firm with business of the cold storage was sanctioned financial assistance for establishment of a unit. Since the respondent No. 1 could not repay the loan within stipulated time the appellant-Bank issued, a demand notice dated 18th February, 2011 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter the possession notice dated 18th May, 2011 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the respondents. The appellant-Bank had issued an E-auction sale notice on 7th June, 2013 which was challenged by respondent No. 1 in the securitisation application No. 483/2012 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Tribunal below.
-
The appellant-Bank auctioned the property in question on 9th July, 2013 for a sum of Rs. 2,05,05,000/-. After the sale of the property, the respondent No. 1 moved an amendment and impleadment application on 23rd October, 2013 in order to amend the securitisation application and to challenge the said auction. However, the amendment application was dismissed vide order dated 3rd January, 2014 by the Tribunal below whereas the impleadment application was allowed vide order dated 29th October, 2013 and the auction purchaser, respondent No. 3 was impleaded. Consequently, as per order dated 7th May, 2014 the securitisation application of the respondent No. 1 was rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
-
The respondent No. 1 filed a review application on 26th May, 2014 before the Tribunal below challenging the sale. The learned DRT below held that there was error apparent on face of record in rejecting the amendment application as per order dated 3rd January, 2014 and accordingly, allowed the review application filed by the respondent No. 1 vide impugned judgment dated 5th March, 2015 and thereby set aside the order dated 7th May, 2014 passed in securitisation application No. 483/2012.
-
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial