Yes Bank Limited vs Debabrata Das

Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

Admission

I.A. No. 265 of 2024

I.A. No. 298 of 2024

I.A. No. 265 of 2024 application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 29 days in preferring the Appeal. Sole Respondent is represented through Mr. Debasish Chakrabarty, Learned Counsel. Vakalatnama is already on record. It is submitted that the delay is not intentional. Rather it is procedural.

Having considered the submissions, I found the ground to be sufficient. Accordingly, I.A. No. 265 of 2024 is allowed. Let the Appeal be registered as regular appeal by providing a regular appeal number.

I.A. No. 298 of 2024 application for amendment to implead the Chief Judicial Magistrate as Respondent. Since the Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order in his official capacity there is no requirement of impleading him as an opposite party. Accordingly, I.A. No. 298 of 2024 is rejected.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the very outset Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Learned DRT has passed an interim order without considering the issue that the SARFAESI Application was filed beyond the period of limitation. It is further submitted that Learned DRT has passed a cryptic order regarding the issue of taking possession by the secured creditor.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that the issue of limitation was prima facie decided by the Learned DRT. As far as the issue of interim order is concerned, SARFAESI Application is yet to be decided wherein objections have been invited.

Having gone through the impugned order, I found that the Learned DRT has recorded a finding on the issue of limitation. However, this order is passed without inviting the written objections from the secured creditor. Hence, the issue of limitation would remain subject to the final outcome of the SARFAESI application wherein the secured creditor would have an opportunity to file his objections as far as limitation is concerned.

Interim order is passed by the Learned DRT pending S.A. It is expected that the Learned DRT since has passed an interim order pending S.A., DRT should make an endeavour to decide the S.A. expeditiously and has to dispose of the same preferably within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is placed before the Learned DRT. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made above, Appeal is disposed of with the directions as contained in the body of the judgment.

ORDER

Appeal is disposed of with the directions as contained in the body of the judgment.

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 DRT.

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

Order pronounced by me in the open Court today i.e.on 19th June, 2024.