ANIL KUMAR BANSAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2003-12-2
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on December 19,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)MR. Anand Aggarwal states that this appeal is directed against the order passed in LA. 379/2003 by DRT-I, Delhi on 1.10.2003. The same is recorded accordingly.
(2.)Learned Counsel for the appellant points out even from the averments in the O.A. filed before the DRT by the respondent-Bank that even prior to the filing of the O.A., the Bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 11.7.2002. By pointing out this fact, the learned Counsel for the appellant states that a Miscellaneous Application was moved before the DRT to dismiss the O.A. itself as not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (10) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, Act, 2002, which reads as under:
"(10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent Court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balance amount from the borrower."

Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that once a notice has been given under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Bank will be entitled to move an O.A. only for the balance and cannot prosecute the O.A. for the entire amount. He contends that this is an important question of law which has to be decided.

(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the appellant also points out the order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the predecessor of the present Presiding Officer of the DRT that this is an important question of law and, therefore, has to be replied by the Bank, and also ordered the application to be listed for heating. He points out that the successor Presiding Officer by this impugned order dated 1.10.2003 has stated that issuing of a notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is not sufficient to dismiss the O.A. LEARNED Counsel for the appellant, therefore, contends that this impugned order is liable to be set aside.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.