Appeal No. R-110 of 2013. Case: Sapna Awasthi Vs Bank of Maharashtra. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal No. R-110 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Wajid Hyder, Advocate and For Respondents: V.K. Srivastava, Advocate |
| Judges | R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 141, 226, 227; Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 1(3), 3; Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4), 14, 14(3), 17, 17(1), 18, 2(f), 2(i) |
| Citation | II (2014) BC 65 (DRAT) |
| Judgement Date | September 18, 2013 |
| Court | Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson)
-
The Counsel for the parties are heard. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 11th April, 2013. By this order, the Securitization Application preferred by the appellants has been dismissed. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present case are that the present appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower and are not the original borrowers. Since the dues were not repaid of the Bank by the original borrower and the legal heirs inherited the property left by the original borrower therefore, the Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 to the appellant No. 1. Since the appellant No. 1 did not pay the dues therefore, the possession of the secured asset was taken through Collector who passed an order under Section 14 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 therefore, the appellants preferred the Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Act. While filing the Securitization Application before the Tribunal, various grounds were raised by the appellants to challenge the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 and also to the order passed under Section 14 of the Act.
-
It was the case of the appellants that only appellant No. 1 was issued notice under Section 13(2) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 and other legal heirs were not issued any notice. Therefore, without issuance of any notice to all the appellants the Bank has no right to proceed with the action under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is submitted that the order passed by the District Collector under Section 14 of the Act was also liable to be set aside in Securitization Application.
-
It was the case of the respondent Bank before the Tribunal that the settled position of law is that if the demand notice issued to the one legal heir then that is sufficient notice to all other legal heirs. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the Bank that in the Securitization application filed under Section 17 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002, the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the said Act cannot be challenged as no Appeal lies under Section 17 against the order of District Magistrate passed under Section 14 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002.
-
The Tribunal accepted the submission so made on behalf of the Bank and dismissed the Securitization Application preferred by the appellants. The Tribunal held that the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon, III (2010) BC 495 (SC): VI (2010) SLT 52: AIR 2010 SC 3413, is being misinterpreted because in the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has not struck down the provision under Section 14(3) of the Act, 2002 by which statutory bar is imposed on the Courts and other authority from interfering with the order of the Collector under Section 14. Thus no application under Section 17 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 lies against the order passed by District Collector in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 14 of the Act. The Tribunal further held that if the notice under Section 13(2) is issued to one of the legal heirs then it will be sufficient service on the other legal heirs. The Tribunal further held that since in the present case the dues have not been liquidated therefore, the Bank has every right to proceed in the matter.
-
in this reference, this is to be seen that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon (supra) and misunderstood the same that the Tribunal has no authority and the judgment passed by the Apex Court does not decide the law correctly and on this basis it is submitted that against the order passed by the District Collector under Section 14 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 a Securitisation Application would not be maintainable.
-
In this reference, this is to be seen that the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon (supra) Para 17 in relied upon which is quoted hereinbelow:
-
There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No. 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression "any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to...
To continue reading
Request your trial