Bank of Baroda vs Krishna Agarwal

Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. None is present for the Respondents.

In brief, the controversy revolves round the point as to whether the appeal can be heard on merits or not.

By the impugned order, dated 25th November, 2017, passed in M.A. 1092 of 2017 arising out of S.A. 46 of 2017, Learned DRT, Cuttack directed the Appellant Bank to deliver possession of the property to the Applicants in the S.A. and also stayed the auction which was scheduled to be held on 1st December, 2017.

During the course of hearing, Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, states that although, in compliance of the order of the Learned DRT, Cuttack, dated 25th November, 2017, Bank has delivered possession of the property to the Applicants of the S.A., the amount of Rs.40,00 lac, deposited by the Applicants in the form of Demand Draft, has yet not been appropriated by the Appellant Bank.

I have gone through the impugned order. It would be appropriate to mention here that the SARFAESI application is still pending for disposal before the Learned DRT, Cuttack. Learned DRT do issue a direction for re-delivery of possession of the property which has already been complied with by the Appellant Bank.

Now, so far as the present appeal is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the S.A. is still pending for disposal and the order, impugned, has already been complied with, this appeal becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed; being infructuous.

ORDERED

The appeal, being Appeal No. 169 of 2018, is dismissed as infructuous.

Next date is fixed on the 11th of July, 2022 for hearing of the S.A. It is expected that the Learned DRT will dispose of the S.A. expeditiously.

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

File be consigned to Record room.

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.