Wednesday, October 16, 2024

application to set aside DM Order under Section 14 of SARFAESI ACT 2002 in DRT

 

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL SILIGURI

PCM Tower, 2nd Floor, 2 no.Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri - 734001.

 

I.A. no. ___________OF 2023

(Diary No. ___________of 2023)

in

SARFAESI APPLICATION NO 26 OF 2022

{ Diary no. 256/2021 }

 

HASNA BEWA

--- ---- APPLICANT

VERSUS

 

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

----- ---- RESPONDENT

 

The humble petition of the above named applicant, most respectfully;

Sheweth as under :

 

1.   That the applicant has already filed an application being SA no. 26 of 2022 (Diary No. 256 of 2021), challenging the action and conduct of the respondent bank in respect of the Loan facility bearing Account No. 0700250032294. The said application is pending before this Learned Tribunal for final adjudication.

 

2.   That the present application to set aside notice being Memo No. 1497(3)/SARFAESI/RM, DATED 14-12-2023, and Order dated 23-11-2023, passed in proceeding being Case no. 20/2023, under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 & Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, by the Learned Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Murshidabad& with Authority Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, in the given facts & circumstances.

 

3.   That the respondent bank during pendency of the said application has issued a sale notice dated 21/01/2022, which was challenged by filling IA no. 46 of 2022.

 

4.   That by Order dated 21/02/2022, the Learned Tribunal was pleased to restrain the respondent bank not to give any effect to any bid in respect of the said sale notice dated 21/01/2022.

 

5.   That the respondent bank by the said Order dated 21/02/2022, was given liberty to file objection to the said IA application. Till date the respondent bank has not served copy of the said objection, as such it is assumed that objection has not been filed.

 

6.   That the applicant has brought series of serious allegations against the officers of the respondent bank, which are yet to be addressed and adjudicated.

 

7.   That with utter surprise the applicant has received the another Sale Notice dated 24/03/2022, only on 03/04/2023, which is similar to the previous sale notice dated 21/01/2023, the dues had been shown same in both the sale notices. The Sale Notice dated 24/03/2022, contained in an Enveloped which has been posted on 30/03/2023, under Speed Post no. EW963073352IN. The said Sale Notice shown under reference as CO SASTRA MURS/EAUCTION/2838/2022-23, date : 24.03.2022.

 

8.   That the conduct of the respondent bank is not in terms of Law. While the first Sale notice is pending where they have chosen not to file any objection, cannot issue the Second Sale Notice dated 24/03/2022.

 

9.   That the respondent bank is deliberately avoiding to deal with the alleged criminality of the bank officials and on the contrary they are showing the applicant duped the loan amount.

 

10. That the respondent bank by avoiding submissions of the objection to the previous sale notice dated 21/01/2022, is actually admitting the case of the applicant which says fraudulent activities of the bank officials.

 

11.     That the respondent bank is only harassing the applicant by sending notices for sale to complicate the issue and to create confusion of the issue which the applicant specify in specific way, which says that the applicant has paid considerable amount, which the then bank officials did not deposit.

 

12.     That the respondent bank has claimed the same amount in sale notice dated 24/03/2022, as was claimed in their sale notice dated 21/01/2022. This singular fact proves that the respondent bank as a routine duty in dealing with the matter and no coordination within the bank is seen meaning thereby the grievance of the applicant is established beyond any doubt.

 

13.       That the facts in the backdrop of the earlier application cited above;

 

(i)           The Defendant has served notice of intended Sale being no. CO SASTRA MURS/EAUCTION/999/2021, dated 21-01-2022, Up-on the applicant which has been posted on 28-01-2022, vide Consignment no. EW361395319IN, which reached to the applicant on 29-01-2022, and at the same time they have published E-Auction Sale Notice in the News Paper dated 22-01-2022, whereby it has been mentioned that mortgaged property of the applicant will be sold out through E-auction on 22-02-2022. It is surprising that in-spite of having knowledge of Criminal Conspiracy and activities of the Bank Officials in looting money from the applicant, the mortgaged property is going to be put on sale.

 

(ii)          The concerned respondent is showing four loan accounts vide account nos. 0700250032294, 0700306740359, 0700306742490, and 0700306734640; but in fact 0700306734640 and 0700250032294, exist and the other two loan accounts have no existence. As such the facts of the case and conduct of the concerned bank are required to be investigated first and the bank should inform the applicant the details of the loan amount disbursed to the applicant. Before doing that they cannot go for E-AUCTION of the mortgaged property.

 

(iii)        The applicant through her Learned Advocate by Email communication to the defendant requested to stay off their hand till out-come of the investigation regarding cheating and conspiracy of bank officials, as mentioned in the complaint dated 20-12-2021.

 

(iv)        After death of husband of your applicant in 2000, she faced a lot of problems including financial issues. To run her family she decided to start a business in 2011-12; but she had no sufficient money. So, She contacted with the then Branch Manager, namely one Mr. Sunder of United Bank of India, now Punjab National Bank, NimtatlaChunakhali Branch, Beharampore, Murshidabad, for getting Loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- . The said Mr. Sunder sanctioned to start and run her business. She availed of that Loan and the same was repaid in time.

 

(v)          Your applicant further decided to enhance her business for which money was required. So She again approached the Branch Manager, who ultimately sanctioned further Loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. She again repaid the said Loan in time. Therefore from time to time on three occasions She had taken Loan from Bank for doing her business and She repaid the entire Loan Amount with interest in time. In the mean-time new manager one Mr. Mahindra came to the Branch of the said Bank. Then the manager was again changed. One Mr. Koushik took the charge. She approached him for extending a Loan to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- to run smoothly the business of “Rana Raja Bastralay”. It was given. By that time the manager was again changed. One Mr. PrakashShrivastava took the charge.

 

(vi)        Your applicant expressed her desire to the Branch Manager to start a new business for which a Loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- was required. But at that time She had existing three Loan accounts. To close down the said accounts, a sum approximately of Rs. 12,00,000/- was necessary. The said manager dissuaded to repay the said sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the new Loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- . your applicant agreed. He asked her to issue three cheques amounting to total 12 Lakhs. Your applicant issued the same and the manager assured her of closing the said three loan accounts. The manger further told your applicant that She would receive a cheque within a four days, and to contact him immediately after receiving the same. Accordingly, your applicant received the cheque by post and immediately contacted him. Subsequently the said Mr. Shrivastava joined RM Office. In-spite of receiving your applicant’s three cheques the Loan Amount was not repaid. In the mean-time your applicant contacted with Mr. ArunBabu, the Assistant Manager and told him the fact. After hearing her trouble he asked the concern Manager Mr. Shrivastava to whom your applicant submitted three cheques, to close down the said accounts immediately. Accordingly your applicant’s said three Loan accounts were closed.

 

(vii)       In availing the said Loan, Your applicant had to mortgage the Title Deed of one of her Properties. In-spite of repeated request and in-spite of the payment of the Loan Amount the bank authority has not returned the title deed. It is still lying with the Bank. The said Mr. Shrivastava also told your applicant not to disclose the fact that He have not been given the Deed to Mr. Sunder, ArunBabu, and Cashier KhokanBabu.

 

(viii)     The said Mr. Shrivastav in mean time came to residence of your applicant and asked for Rs. 3,00,000/- immediately to treat his ailing father and further assured her of depositing the same in her Loan Account. This is the incident of 2020. Relying his words and considering his immediate need She gave him Rs. 3 Lakhs by Cash. The said Mr. Shrivastav after a few days again came to residence of your applicant and asked for money to save another Customer of the Bank whose account has been declared as NPA. He immediately opened TOD and transferred Rs. 8 Lakhs in your applicant’s Account and then took that money for saving the said customer. He further promised to deposit the previous Rs. 3 Lakhs and present Rs. 8 Lakhs in your applicant’s Loan Account. But he has not kept his promise. The said Mr. Shrivastav again came to your applicant’s house and asked for Rs. 2 Lakhs in lieu of opening a Loan Account having subsidy facility. She paid him Rs. 50,000/- by cash and Rs. 1,50,000/- by cheque. The said Mr. Shrivastav has not given her certificate against her Gold Bond of 12 gm. Gold for which Rs. 60,000/- was given.

 

(ix)        The said Mr. Shrivastav has neither returned your applicant’s money to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- nor has he deposited the same in her loan account. He also has not handed over her Mediclaim Certificate for which She paid him Rs. 16,000/-. Beside key of the hardware shop room of one Mr. JagadishMondal has also not been handed over to her. He took the names of surajit, and sekhar of the bank who would solve her problem. The said ArunBabu of the bank in two parts took Rs. 14 Lakhs from your applicant against booking of a flat. Neither any agreement for sale has been prepared nor money, has been returned. Arunbabu has also cheated your applicant.

 

(x)          Surprisingly the Bank authority which has now been merged with Punjab National Bank has published in “Financial Express” as well as Bengali vernacular “Ekdin” on their Edition on 10-11-2021, Possession Notice, in respect of the same property. In one place they have shown total outstanding as Rs. 69,27,691.87/- and in another place the outstanding has been shown as Rs. 18,83,206.87/-;

 

(xi)        Your applicant has been shown a defaulter but in reality She never have been provided with the alleged Loan Amount. It is a conspiracy of the Bank Officials, for which She has been impleaded as a party to the issue.

 

(xii)      The bank officials have sanctioned & withdrawn Rs. 4 Lakhs which has been given for survival during the pandemic from account no. 0700306740359. Besides your applicant have no idea about the account number 0700306742490, where Rs. 2.81 lakhs have been shown. Who has sanctioned and who has taken money, your applicant cannot tell.

 

(xiii)     Your applicant lodge such facts with the concerned Police Authority as well as the Bank Authority seeking thereby investigation into the matter of her complaint and to book the culprit being bank officials. Your applicant is victim who has been defrauded by bank officials.

 

(xiv)     Pursuant to grant of loan facility vide sanction letter dated 01/08/2018 by the Respondent to and in favour of your  applicant. The respondent took mortgaged of her one of the property. Full description of the said ownership property of the Applicant particularly described in a Schedule at the foot hereof and marked as Schedule “A”. It is pertinent to states that the Loan Account no. 0700250032294, has been assigned by the Defendant.

 

(xv)       The Borrower being your applicant regularly paid to the Respondent, and whereas the said EMI directly taken by the Respondent Bank, through ECS from the account of the borrower. Borrower did not default in paying her EMI as assigned by the respondent bank.

 

(xvi)     In the month of April’ 2021, the respondent bank through its Letter dated 09-04-2021, sent Recovery notice stating inter alia your borrower as a defaulter and call upon your applicant for payment of Rs. 49,24,927/- ( Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs and Twenty Four Thousand and Nine Hundred Twenty Seven ) only, categorize such Loan account as NPA ( Nonperforming account) on 31-03-2021, and thereby threatened to initiate Legal proceeding against your applicant.

 

(xvii)   The Reserve Bank of India on 27-03-2020, issued Statement of Development and Regulatory Policies where inter alia certain regulatory measures were announced to mitigate the burden of debt servicing brought about by disruptions on account of COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure the continuity of financial assertions, which extended time and again, by the RBI.

 

(xviii)  The Reserve Bank of India has issued such notification for the moratorium period at first for the three months commencing from the month of March’ 2020, April’ 2020, and May’ 2020, and consequently for another three months i.e. June’ 2020, July’ 2020, and August’ 2020. Thus a total period of Six months has been given as moratorium period were announced to mitigate the burden of debt servicing brought about by disruptions on account of COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure the continuity of financial assertions, which extended time and again, by the RBI.

 

(xix)     The Applicant astonished while She received a notice on or about 05/11/2021 at the door of her residence wherein it was purportedly contended that one alleged notice dated 02-07-2021 by the Respondent purportedly under sub-Section 2 of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act; 2002, calling upon the Applicant to discharge in full a total sum of Rs.69,27,691.87/- ( Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Ninety One and paise eighty seven ) only, was allegedly served upon the Applicant.

 

14.               That surprisingly, the Officer-in-Charge, SARFAESI Act, 2002, Murshidabad, has given an intimation vide memo no. 1323/R.M./SARFAESI, dated 16-10-2023, asking the petitioner to be present on 03-11-2023, in the hearing before the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Murshidabad& with Authority under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, in a proceeding being Case no. 20/2023, instituted by the Defendant Bank. The envelop reached to the petitioner on 02-11-2023, and it was posted on 31st day of October’ 2023. It is astonishing that the said memo issued by the concerned Officer-in-Charge, SARFAESI Act, 2002, Murshidabad, was sent in a printed envelop of the respondent Punjab National Bank. This conduct clearly establishes an unholy nexus between the bank and statutory authority, which has been done to non-suit the petitioner specially when the respondent bank in-spite of getting several opportunity chose not to file written objection against the present application as well as against the IA application, so, far.

 

Photostat copies of the said memo dated 16-10-2023, envelop, & track consignment report are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “A” Collectively.

 

15.               That the Learned Advocate for the petitioner on 03-11-2023, intimated (1) the Officer-in-Charge, SARFAESI Act, 2002, Murshidabad, (2) the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Murshidabad, & with Authority under section 14 of SARFAESI Act 2002, and (3) the Punjab National Bank, by email, & Post that within the short period of time the petitioner would not be able to attend the meeting as such the said authority has deferred the meeting and it has been fixed on 23-11-2023, by way of further intimation by memo no. 1360/R.M./SARFAESI, dated 08-11-2023, which has been received by the Petitioner on 14-11-2023.

 

Photostat copies of the intimation by the Learned Advocate dated 03-11-2023, and memo no. 1360/R.M./SARFAESI, dated 08-11-2023, with envelop, & track report, are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “B” Collectively.

 

16.               That the Petitioner placed such facts on record with appropriate communication to the Respondent as well as to (1) the Officer-in-Charge, SARFAESI Act, 2002, Murshidabad, (2) the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Murshidabad, & with Authority under section 14 of SARFAESI Act 2002, by email, & Post, by way of IA applications, which has been heard by the Hon’ble Tribunal on 15-12-2023. The Hon’ble Tribunal Was pleased to pass necessary order viewing that mere issuing notices under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act 2002, does not give any cause of action and therefore the Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the IA’s application placed by the Petitioner.

 

Photostat copy of the Order dated 15-12-2023, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “C”.

 

17.               That very surprisingly, on 21-12-2023, your petitioner received a communication vide Memo No. 1497(3)/SARFAESI/RM, DATED 14-12-2023, which give a copy of Order dated 23/11/2023, passed in case no. 20/2023, by the Learned ADM (LR), Murshidabad. The said communication has been given by the Officer-in-Charge, SARFAESI, Murshidabad. The said communication has been booked only on 18-12-2023 with concerned post office and the same has been delivered in the evening on 21-12-2023, to the petitioner.

 

Photostat copy of the Communication dated 14-12-2023, along with the Order dated 23-11-2023, passed in Case no. 20/2023, by the Learned ADM(LR), Murshidabad, envelop, & track report, are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “D”, Collectively.

 

18.               That the Order dated 23-11-2023, passed in Case no. 20/2023, by the Learned ADM (LR), Murshidabad, does not speak about the pendency of the present SA proceeding before the Hon’ble Tribunal, even after having full knowledge, and the Respondent Bank did not disclose about the said Order dated 23-11-2023, while submitting their written objection in earlier IA application, on 08-12-2023, and also at the time of hearing on 15-12-2023. The conduct of the respondent Bank as surfaced on the face of record clearly established the unholy nexus between the ADM (LR), Murshidabad, and the Respondent Bank, to give a fresh Cause of Action during the pendency of the present SA application before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

 

19.               That the Order dated 23-11-2023, passed in Case no. 20/2023, by the Learned ADM (LR), Murshidabad, give direction to take the Secured Assets being the immovable property as Residence of the Petitioner latest by 17th day of January’ 2024, if needed the Respondent Bank will take help of the Police in ousting the petitioner from the said subjected property, is totally illegal adventure and without due process of the Law, while the present SA proceeding is pending for adjudication and awaiting for its final hearing before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

 

20.               That the Petitioner states that the above referred SA application is pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble  Tribunal. The Respondent Bank is illegally proceeding with the matter under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, being Case no. 20/2023, before the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Murshidabad, & with Authority under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act’ 2002, So long any order favour the respondent Bank, they are not in a position to advance the case under Section 14 of the said Act, and the order, therein, if any pursuing the illegality, so far.

 

21.               That the Petitioner states that both the Respondent Bank and the said statutory authority are intentionally complicating the issue. The Respondent is trying to dodge the issue and establishing a fresh cause of action, which attribute irreparable suffering to the petitioner.

 

22.               That the Applicant states that the Defendants are deliberately trying to encroach the properties so that they can earn an added advantage over it as they have suppressed many material facts and even disobeyed the laws as enumerated in the ‘said Act’; such transpires from their performances which are being foreseen herein above with facts and evidence such illegal, concocted steps must categorically be directed for the ends of natural justice, furthermore no such arrogant, biased and disobedient steps be barred from taking into consideration by the Defendants as there is law above everyone.

 

23.               That the applicant further submits that the purported steps and measures taken by the defendant against the applicant are full of undue haste and ill motive without applicability of the provisions as enumerated under the SERFESAI Act. The applicant craves to make appropriate submission on facts and law at the time of hearing.

 

24.               That the applicant further pray that the illegal steps taken by the defendant under the blanket of the SARFAESI Act and rules made thereunder are bad in law and thus it must be set aside and or quashed forthwith and status quo be maintained over the mortgaged property till the adjudication of this Lis, as the action of the defendants are ambiguous contrary to the settled provisions of the Law and procedure and or not in accordance with the were settled and established law and rules.

 

25.               That the defendant did not follow the process of service as lay down by the provisions. This action of the defendant bank clearly shows the desperation of theirs to recover the money from the borrowers by any means possible. That the applicant submits that this kind of desperate actions by a financial institution like the defendant bank is very shameful as they are in as such higher position of power and plays a very important role in the daily life of the public they serve.

 

26.               That the applicant hereby prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an order to set aside notice being Memo No. 1497(3)/SARFAESI/RM, DATED 14-12-2023, and Order dated 23-11-2023, passed in proceeding being Case no. 20/2023, under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 & Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, by the Learned Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Murshidabad& with Authority Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, at the behest of the defendant Bank, as the whole procedure totally based on negligence of the Bank and only to rectify their own mistakes which clearly shows the malaise intentions of the banking authority behaving more like a money lenders from the past days.

 

27.               That unless the order/orders prayed by the applicant is passed by the Ld. Tribunal the applicant herein will suffer from the wrong doing of the defendant bank herein

 

28.               That this interim application is made bona fide and for the end of justice.

 

 

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed as follows:-

 

a.   Declaration that the purported steps and measures taken by the Defendant under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is bad in law and be quashed;

 

b.   To set aside notice being Memo No. 1497(3)/SARFAESI/RM, DATED 14-12-2023, and Order dated 23-11-2023, passed in proceeding being Case no. 20/2023, under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 & Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, by the Learned Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Murshidabad& with Authority Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002;

 

c.   To grant stay of notice being Memo No. 1497(3)/SARFAESI/RM, DATED 14-12-2023, and Order dated 23-11-2023, passed in proceeding being Case no. 20/2023, under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 & Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, by the Learned Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Murshidabad& with Authority Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002;

 

d.   An appropriate order of status-quo till the disposal of this case;

 

e.    For an exemplary cost may be imposed upon the Defendant Bank;

 

f.     Such or other order may kindly also be passed as deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of this case.

 

And for this act of kindness your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCHEDULE “A” ABOVE REFERRED TO

 

Description of immovable property

ALL that piece and parcel of the immovable property being at Mouza : Jan-Mahammadpur, J.L. no. 112, L.R. Khatian No. 2417, L.R. Dag no. 2503, measuring 3.50 decimal alongwith construction of Two storied building standing thereon within the limits of Hatinagar Gram Panchayat, Post Office – Ghorsala, Police Station – Raghunathganj, District – Murshidabad, Pin - 742102, West Bengal, bounded by :

On the North                 : Road

On the South                : House of RasimuddinMondal,

On the East                   : House of MarjinaBibi,

On the West                  : Bapi Sk.

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

I, HasnaBewa, Wife of Late JanaruddinSeikh, aged about 51 years, by faith Muslim, by Occupation Business, residing at premises being Village – Ustia, Post Office – Muktinagar, Police Station – Berahampore, District – Murshidabad, Pin – 742102, West Bengal, do here by solemnly affirm and declare as follows:-

 

1.   That I am the Applicant in the above case and I am well acquainted with the facts of the suit and I am competent to swear this Affidavit for and on behalf of the Applicant.

 

2.   That the statements made above in paragraphs are true to my knowledge as derived from the records.

 

 

That the rest are my humble submissions to the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal and I sign this Affidavit on the _________December’ 2023.

 

 

 

 

Signature

Identified by me

 

Advocate

 

                                                                  

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate.

Dated : _____December’ 2023.

Place : Kolkata.                                         

 

N O T A R Y

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment