AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant and perused the record.
Instant appeal is preferred against order dated 17.3.2026 passed by the Learned DRT-II, Kolkata in S.A. 437 of 2025 in I.A. 5928 of 2026 and I.A. 5927 of 2026. S.A. was filed by the Appellant challenging the Possession Notice dated 29.4.25 and Notice under Section 13 (2) dated 17.3.2025. I.A. 5927 of 2026 was filed for put- up and I.A. 5928 of 2026 was filed for staying the operation of the order dated 7.8.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai in Criminal Misc. Case No. 276 of 2025 under Section 14 of the Act. Learned DRT observed that the matter shall be taken up under the heading of 'Put-up' on 16.4.2026 with a further direction that if the Defendant/F.I. is executing the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, three weeks’ prior notice shall be given.
Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that a wrong submission was made by the Learned Counsel for Respondent/F.I. as a notice was issued by the Advocate Commissioner on 26.2.2026 for vacating the premises. It is further submitted that the matter was settled in the Arbitration Proceedings while arbitral award dated 21st March, 2023 was also issued. Learned Counsel submits that despite the award Appellant is being again prosecuted under the SARFAESI Act. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Nagabhushana -vs- State of Karnataka & Others [(2011) 3 SCC 408].
Perusal of the impugned order reflects that matter is listed before the Learned DRT on 16.4.2026 for hearing. Record further reveals that notice was issued by the Advocate Commissioner on 26.2.2026. Thereafter, no fresh notice is issued. In the order itself, Learned DRT has directed the Appellant by issuing a direction to the F.I. to give three weeks’ prior notice acting on the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 14 of the Act. There is nothing on record to show that any fresh notice is issued by the Advocate Commissioner, hence, there is no urgency in the matter.
As far as issue of award is concerned, during course of hearing, Learned Counsel for Appellant admits that the award is not complied with by the Appellants and yet not challenged. However, Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that they would challenge the same but as on date award is in force.
Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order which is an interlocutory order and matter is yet to be disposed of by the Learned DRT on the date fixed.
Accordingly, this appeal is highly misconceived and is dismissed at the 'Admission' stage.
File be consigned to Record room.
Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's Website.
Order pronounced in open Court.