AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present case was heard and reserved for orders on merits of the case vide order dated 17.11.2025 of this Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal below vide order dated 10.07.2017, which was passed in O.A. No. 493/2017 filed by the respondent-Bank, had attached the entire assets of the appellants by appointing court commissioner, but the Bank after issuance of demand notice, possession notice, issued e- auction sale notice on 20.09.2020 scheduling auction of the property in question on 07.10.2020, which was challenged by filing I.A. No. 243/2020 and the same was allowed by the Tribunal below vide order dated 09.10.2020. It was further contended that subsequent to it, the appellants pressed their interim relief on 20.10.2020 with regard to the sale dated 07.10.2020, but the Tribunal below vide order impugned rejected the same without considering the objection/ground of the appellant that since the secured assets had already been attached by the Tribunal below, therefore it could not be attached again under section 13(4) of the SARFARSI Act without permission of the Tribunal below. It was thus prayed that the order impugned may be set-aside and the appeal may be disposed by allowing the interim relief sought by the appellants against the auction sale notice dated 20.09.2020 and e-auction dated 07.10.2020.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that the appellants have challenged the entire proceedings of the Bank before the Tribunal by filing the S.A. No. 132/2018, which is yet to be adjudicated on merits, therefore, there is no occasion at this stage to go into the controversy raised by the appellants. It was further contended that the appellants are the borrows, mortgagers of the properties in question to the loan account of the appellant No. 1, which is party in both the cases i.e. S.A. No. 132/2018 and O.A. No. 493/2017 and as such it was contended that it is incumbent upon the appellants to pay the dues of the Bank. It was also contended that both the proceedings can go simultaneously and there is no legal impediment for the Bank in proceeding in both the Acts together with for recovery of its dues, which has been upheld by the Tribunal vide order impugned. It was, therefore, prayed that the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Tribunal and the appeal filed by the appellants may be dismissed with heavy costs.
Learned counsel for the respondent-auction purchaser has adopted the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed with heavy costs, as the Tribunal below has rightly held both the proceedings undertaken by the Bank simultaneously to be valid.
Considered the arguments and perused the record.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against an interlocutory order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the Tribunal below, whereby the interim relief sought by the appellants in the pending S.A. has been declined.
The main controversy involved in the present case is, as to whether the Bank can proceed under the SARFAESI Act against the attached properties by the Tribunal below in the proceeding of the RDDB FI Act, 1993 or not?
In this regard, the Tribunal below vide order impugned has already clarified that vide order dated 10.07.2017, the defendants/appellants were only restrained from disposing, transferring, alienating the mortgaged property in any manner. Thus, it is clear that no properties were attached by the Tribunal below, when the Bank proceeded under the SARFAESI Act.
The Tribunal below vide order impugned has further held that besides above, proceedings initiated against the secured assets under the SARFAESI Act are an additional remedy to the RDB Act, 1993 relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2006- M/s Transcore Vs. Union of India, decided on 29.11.2006 and the Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 1743 of 2012- State Bank of India Vs. M/s Purnia Cold Storage and Anr., decided on 31.07.2013.
From the above, it is clear that no secured assets of the appellant were attached by the Tribunal below vide order dated 10.07.2017, hence the contention of the appellant that the properties of the appellants were attached vide order dated 10.07.2017, is not tenable. However, it has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act are separate and distinct, as both the proceedings can go simultaneously. Thus the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Appellant Tribunal.
In view of the discussions as held above, the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed, hence the same is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties as well as the DRT concerned and be also uploaded on e-drt portal.