AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
Counsel for the appellant has made a deposit of Rs. 10 lacs in compliance of the directions given on the last date of hearing. Now, appeal shall be entertained and heard on merit.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that despite the fact that respondent Bank had submitted an affidavit before the DRT informing it that the impugned demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act had been withdrawn, the learned DRT should not have wrapped up the S.A. proceedings in the manner in which it has been done by passing the following cryptic order on 22.12.2017.
"Authorized representative of the Bank present and represented with SK and presents withdrawn and the cause of action for S.A. does not survive. Liberty is given to Bank to proceed afresh.
Copy of the order be given free of cost to the parties.
File be placed before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record."
Counsel further submits that since the appellant had sought adjudication of its grievances by filing a securitization application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act and challenge to the demand notice was only one of his grievances, the DRT should not have given liberty to the Bank to proceed afresh. To this, the response of the learned Counsel for the Bank is that the Bank can always withdraw its demand notice and it does not require any liberty from the DRT to issue a fresh demand notice.
Today, after some hearing had taken place, both sides submit that the impugned order can be set aside and the matter can be remanded back to the DRT for passing a fresh order in accordance with law once again taking into consideration the statement which already stood made before it on behalf of the Bank that it had withdrawn its notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which was also the subject matter of challenge in appellant's S.A., and then to take up the amendment application which also stood filed on behalf of the appellant in view of the withdrawal of the Section 13(2)-notice, for which a separate affidavit has also been filed of the Bank Officer. The learned Counsel for the Bank, however, submits that since already a fresh Section 13(2)-notice stands served upon the appellant, it may, however, be clarified that remand of this matter to the DRT will not have any impact on the fresh notice which already stands issued by the Bank, since the appellant has already approached the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) with a writ petition (No. 6843/2018) challenging the very issuance of the Section 13(2)-notice.
In view of the aforesaid joint submissions for remand of the matter, this appeal is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the DRT for fresh disposal of the S.A. in accordance: with law. It would be open to both the parties to urge any point before the DRT and the DRT will be at liberty to take any decision in accordance with law. This order of remand is being passed not only because of the joint prayer having been made from both the sides, but this Tribunal is also of the view that the appellant's S.A. could not have been disposed of in the manner in which it has been done.
It is, however, clarified that this order of remand will have no impact on the fresh demand notice which the Bank is stated to have issued, since the legality and validity of 13(2) notice already stands challenged before Jaipur Bench of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in a Writ Petition (No. 6843/2018) filed by the appellant.
The matter shall now be taken up by DRT for further appropriate direction on 12.11.2018 at 10 a.m., by which time I am informed that a regular Presiding Officer would join the DRT, Jaipur.
Record of the DRT be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this order.