AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar Srivastava Chairperson
I.A. 5 of 2022
The instant application has been filed by Appellant for substituting Union Bank of India in place and instead of Andhra Bank.
The amendment being formal in nature, the prayer for substitution is allowed.
Appellant Bank is directed to carry out the amendment in course of the day.
I.A. 5 of 2022 stands disposed of.
I.A. 6 of 2022
The instant application has been filed by Appellant for withdrawal of the appeal with a prayer to proceed afresh against the Respondents under the provisions of Sarfesi Act.
The appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam, passed in S.A. 235 of 2017 (M/s. Sri Venkata Sai Poultries & Others –vs- Andhra Bank) dated 20th February, 2019; operative part of the order is set out hereunder:
“In the result, this S.A. 235/2017 is allowed by setting aside the entire Sarfaesi proceedings from issuance of notice u/s 13 (4) possession notice including e-auction notice dated 30.05.2017 for conducting sale on 05.07.2017. I further hold that taking procedure laid down under Sarfaesi Act, 2002 and rules made there under is illegal and therefore Appellants are entitled for re-delivery of the schedule mentioned property and Respondent Bank is directed to re-deliver the physical possession of the schedule property forthwith. However, Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law after re-delivery of the schedule mentioned property to the Appellants.”
Writ Petition No. 4467 of 2019 (Andhra Bank –vs- Sri Venkata Sai Poultries & Others) was preferred by the Appellant which was decided by Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 30th April, 2019 wherein in para 8 the Hon’ble Bench held as under:
“Having regard to the above factual scenario and in order to afford protection to the subject property, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner herein to handover the possession of subject property to the Respondents herein, subject to the Respondents paying a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) to the petitioner Bank. It is made clear that the petitioner Bank shall deliver the property to the Respondents immediately on payment of the aforesaid amount. This arrangement is subject to the outcome of the appeal already filed by the petitioner Bank before the appellate Tribunal. It is also made clear that the appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavor to dispose of the appeal vide Diary No. 93 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible. It is further made clear that the Respondents herein shall not create any encumbrance on the subject property pending adjudication before the appellate Tribunal.”
During the course of hearing Mr. N. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Respondents fairly conceded that in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, an amount of Rs.35.00 lac was deposited to the Bank and thereafter the Bank had delivered the property to the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Debanjan Dutta, fairly conceded the factual position that such order of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has been complied with. Learned Counsel further submits that Appellant Bank wants to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to proceed afresh under Sarfaesi Act, 2002 to which Learned Counsel for the Respondents has no objection.
As prayed for, Appellants are permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002.
Accordingly, I.A. 6 of 2022 is allowed.
ORDER
The present appeal, being Appeal No. 99 of 2019, is withdrawn with liberty to Appellant to proceed afresh against the Respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002.
Letters dated 4th of September, 2019 and 11th of September, 2019, filed by Respondents, be taken on record.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be uploaded in the website of this Tribunal.