Indian Bank vs B. Sravan Kumar & Another

Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

I.A. 524 of 2019

In this application Appellants have prayed for condonation of forty five days delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order was passed on 17th June, 2019 and the appeal was filed on 2nd September, 2019. After receiving the certified copy and signing of documents and completing official formalities there was some delay which was not intentional.

Going through the record, I find the ground, as made out in the application, is sufficient for condoning the delay of forty five days.

Accordingly, the application, being I.A. 524 of 2019, is allowed by condoning the delay.

Appeal be registered as regular appeal by supplying regular number.

Opposition filed by the Respondents is taken on record. Copy served upon the Appellant.

With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, Appeal is being heard on merits.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The instant appeal has arisen against order dated 17th June, 2019, passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) allowing the SARFAESI Application No. 102 of 2017 filed by the Respondents herein.

As per the pleadings of the parties, the Respondents have availed Cash Credit Facilities sanctioned by the Bank which became irregular and finally was classified as N.P.A. The proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated by the Bank. Feeling aggrieved, Respondents preferred an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Learned Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned order.

The impugned judgment and order shows that SARFAESI Application was allowed merely on the ground that the Bank failed to prove the service of notices upon the Respondents and affixation of notice at the scheduled property although the same are filed along with the reply.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the documents are filed before the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as before this Appellate Tribunal but the Learned Tribunal failed to consider those documents hence the order itself is bad in law.

Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the factual aspects of the matter are not considered by the Learned Tribunal and matter may be remanded to the Learned Tribunal for fresh decision.

I find it was incumbent upon the Learned Tribunal to consider the documents filed by the Bank but Learned Tribunal has not considered those documents and recorded its finding to the effect that documents are not filed. Such finding itself is against the law. When the documents were filed they should have been looked into and considered by the Learned Tribunal. In such circumstances, I find it appropriate that the matter should be remanded to Learned Tribunal for deciding afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

ORDER

The appeal, being Appeal 58 of 2022, is allowed. The impugned order dated 17th June, 2019, passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad is hereby set aside. Learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before the Learned Tribunal on 29th March, 2023.

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 Tribunal.

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

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of February, 2023.