AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
13.02.2024 Heard Counsel for both the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed in I.A. No.5148 of 2023. The Application was filed by Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited praying for following relief(s):
“a)Allow the present Application;
b)Allow Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited to be substituted in place of City Union Bank Limited;
c)Take the Amended Memo;
d)pass such orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the said circumstances and render justice.”
The case of the Applicant in the application was that M/s City Union Bank Limited Original – Financial Creditor has vide Assignment Agreement dated 31.03.2023 has assigned the debt to the applicant, hence, the applicant be substituted in place of City Union Bank Limited. The application has been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority, aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submit that the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 21.12.2023 was filed before the Adjudicating Authority which order of Debt Recovery Tribunal has directed parties to maintain status-quo which order has not been referred to by the Adjudicating Authority.
It is further submitted that there was no debt and default, hence, there was no NPA. We have considered submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. The Assignment Deed is also subject matter of challenge before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Coming to the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 21.12.2023, we are of the view that the said order has no bearing on the Assignment dated 31.03.2023 which was done much prior to the said order. Only prayer in the application was to substitute the Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited in place of City Union Bank Limited. Application has been allowed has only permitting substitution of the Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited. By allowing the application it cannot be said that any other issue have been decided by the Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order.
We thus, do not find any error in the order warranting interference by Appellate Court in this Appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
We make it clear that, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of Section 7 Application which is to be decided in accordance with law.