Borna Mondal vs Bank of Maharashtra Jadavpur Branch

Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by Ld. DRT-3 Kolkata in S.A. No. 103 of 2020 Barna Mondal Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Appellant preferred the Appeal.

As far as facts of the case are concerned, it is undisputed fact that the Appellant has taken loan to an extent of Rs. 37,42,000/-(Rupees thirty seven lac forty two thousand) from the Respondent Bank on 22nd January, 2016 while the instalments were not made in time. Loan was classified as NPA on 31.10.2019 and Bank proceeded under provisions of SARFAESI Act.

Feeling aggrieved the Appellant preferred the SARFAESI Application No. 103 of 2020 which was pending before the Ld. DRT. During the pendency an I.A. No. 231 of 2022 put up petition was filed which was allowed. Another I.A, No. 232 of 2022 was filed challenging the order of the Ld. District Magistrate 24 Parganas (North) dated 25.09.2020. This Application was taken up by the Ld. DRT on 04.02.2022 wherein opportunity of filing objections were granted to the Respondent Bank with a further opportunity to the Appellant to file the rejoinder and the matter was listed for hearing on 04.03.2022. Ld. DRT did not find any ground to grant any interim protection.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is bad in law. Ld. DRT should have recorded the reasons as required for granting of an interim injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Since no reason is mentioned and the interim protection was not granted, order could not sustain.

Learned Counsel further submits that as far as the order of the District Magistrate is concerned, the District Magistrate has recorded that the secured creditor wants to reconstruct the financial assets after taking over the possession. Hence, he has applied his mind from the merits of the matter without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Application filed by the Appellant was not finally disposed of by the Ld. DRT. Rather an opportunity was given for filing objections. Further at the stage of interim protection, Ld. DRT has recorded that the payments were not made by the Appellant and interim protection was not granted.

As far as I.A. No. 232 of 2022 is concerned, it has yet not been disposed of by the Ld. DRT. The only grievance of the Appellant is that the order is not reasoned. As far as reasons are concerned, judicial authority is required to record reasons at the time of finally disposing of the Application for interim protection. At the stage of giving opportunity of filing objections to the Bank, there was no requirement of recording any reasons by the Ld. DRT. Ld. DRT has further recorded that some proposal for settlement was made which was not acceptable to the Bank. Accordingly, Appellant was not found for any interim protection.

Since the I.A. is pending, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed. All the interim orders stand vacated. Ld. Presiding Officer DRT-3 Kolkata should make an effort to decide the I.A. expeditiously

No Order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record Room.

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

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

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of June, 2023.