SKYHIGH BRIGHT BARS PVT LTD Vs. CO OPERATIVE BANK OF AHMEDABAD LTD
LAWS(DR)-2004-12-14
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on December 06,2004

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.J.Paratwar, - (1.) THIS Appeal takes exception to the respondent's taking possession of the appellant No. 1's property being Plot bearing group No. 295, M/s. Skyhigh Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd., Dakivali, Taluka Wada, Dist. Thane, Gram Panchayat Dakivali under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act').
(2.) On failure of appellant No. 1 to make payment of Rs. 1,72,91,160.41 as demanded by notice dated. 08.04.2003 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. The respondent Bank took possession, The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are Directors of appellant No. 1.
(3.) THE authority of the officer who has issued the notice is at the outset challenged by the appellants. THE grounds on which the Appeal has been filed are that the appellants vide letter dated. 31.12.2003 replied to the respondent's notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. But, the respondent did not consider the representation muchless inform the decision thereupon to the appellants. THE appellant No. 4 had given security of his Flat to the extent of Rs. 45 lacs but by the notice under Section. 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, he was called upon to make entire payment comprising of outstandings of other facilities also. THE appellant had challenged the notice in Writ Petition Lodging No. 875 of 2004 in which the Bank was allowed to take symbolic possession. THE Bank exercised it's right and took symbolic possession on 21.7.2004 of the factory premises. THE respondent being Multistate Co-operative Bank is not said to be covered by the Securitisation Act. THE appellants contended that they did not commit default and that the account was not classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA). Yet, the notice was mala fide issued. THE notice also did not give details of the amount payable under different heads. THE respondent did not gave effective reply. THE claim is barred by limitation.;


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