IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
9, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATA – 700001
MISC. APPEAL NO. OF
2024
{DIARY NO. OF
2024}
(Arising
out of Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333 of 2024, arising
out of SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal- III Kolkata)
GLOBAL
AQUA & ANR. ________APPELLANTS
-
VERSUS –
CANARA
BANK & ANR. ________RESPONDENTS
PAPER BOOK
VOLUME – I
ADVOCATE FOR
THE APPELLANTS
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,
ADVOCATE
HIGH COURT BAR
ASSOCIATION ROOM NO. 15,
HIGH COURT
CALCUTTA
MOBILE NO.
9883070666 / 9836829666
E-MAIL : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
9, OLD POST
OFFICE STREET, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATA – 700001
MISC. APPEAL
NO. OF 2024
{DIARY NO. OF 2024}
(Arising out
of Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333 of 2024, arising out of
SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-
III Kolkata)
GLOBAL AQUA
& ANR. ________APPELLANTS
-
VERSUS –
CANARA BANK
& ANR. ________RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OF
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL
ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002
FOR USE IN
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL’S OFFICE
DATE OF
FILLING : / /2024
DATE OF
RECEIPT BY POST :
REGISTRATION
NUMBER : OF 2024
SIGNATURE :
REGISTRAR :
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
9, OLD POST
OFFICE STREET, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATA – 700001
MISC. APPEAL
NO. OF 2024
{DIARY NO. OF 2024}
(Arising out
of Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333 of 2024, arising out of
SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-
III Kolkata)
GLOBAL AQUA
& ANR. ________APPELLANTS
-
VERSUS –
CANARA BANK
& ANR. ________RESPONDENTS
VOLUME – I
GENERAL INDEX
|
SL.NO. |
DESCRIPTION |
ANNEXURE |
PAGES |
|
1 |
Memorandum
of Appeal |
- |
|
|
2 |
The
Certified Copy of Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333 of
2024, arising out of SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the
Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata; |
- |
|
|
3 |
Vakalatnama |
- |
|
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
9, OLD POST
OFFICE STREET, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATA – 700001
MISC. APPEAL
NO. OF 2024
{DIARY NO. OF 2024}
(Arising out
of Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333 of 2024, arising out of
SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-
III Kolkata)
GLOBAL AQUA
& ANR. ________APPELLANTS
-
VERSUS –
CANARA BANK
& ANR. ________RESPONDENTS
LIST OF DATES
EVENTS
|
Sl. No. |
Dates |
Particulars’ |
|
1 |
28/03/2023 |
Demand
Notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002; |
|
2 |
22/03/2024 |
Accounts of
the Appellants classified as NPA; |
|
3 |
03/07/2024 |
Possession
Notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; |
|
4 |
31/07/2024 |
SARFAESI
Application filed by the Appellants; |
|
5 |
11/11/2024 |
E-Auction
Sale Notice published in News Papers, fixing dated on 11/12/2024 for EMD and
E-Auction on 13/12/2024; |
|
6 |
10/12/2024 |
Impugned
Order passed |
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
9, OLD POST
OFFICE STREET, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATA – 700001
MISC. APPEAL
NO. OF 2024
{DIARY NO. OF 2024}
(Arising out
of Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333 of 2024, arising out of
SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-
III Kolkata)
GLOBAL AQUA
& ANR. ________APPELLANTS
-
VERSUS –
CANARA BANK
& ANR. ________RESPONDENTS
POINTS OF LAW
I.
While the Learned Tribunal has only recorded the submissions of the
appellant that the demand notice 28-03-2023, had various errors, including that
on the housing loan but has missed to take note that the said loan was never
enjoyed by the appellants as it was never disbursed, at the same time EMI’s
from the saving account of the appellants for a considerable period of time
have been deducted. Such illegal conduct of the respondent bank has vitiated
the entire proceeding, Since the Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act’ 2002, apparently is
defective, so the subsequent actions in the proceeding have to be declared
defective.
II.
When the appellants since are not a borrower in terms of the housing
loan pretext stated in the statement annexed to the Notice under Section 13(2)
of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act’ 2002, therefore have
no liability to the respondent bank, on such premises prescribing the appellants
as a defaulter of a loan amount which has never been disbursed makes the entire
proceeding faulty and illegal.
III.
While the Learned Tribunal has recorded only the submissions of the
learned advocate for the respondent bank which is only denial of the facts
produced by the appellants, as such an oral denial cannot and should not bring
satisfaction to the Learned Tribunal in rejecting the prayer for stay of
e-auction sale notice.
IV.
While the Learned Tribunal has recorded the procedural compliance of the
respondent bank while issuing the e-auction sale notice, but it was the
mandatory duty of the Learned Tribunal to look into the fact that Notice under
Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, since clearly is defective, the subsequent recourses
in the procedure is a nullity in the eye of law.
V.
It is not clear from the order impugned as to how the Learned Tribunal
concluded that prima facie there is no substantive irregularity in the impugned
sale notice, since the order impugned lacks in reasoning.
VI.
The observation of the Learned Tribunal as to declaration of NPA of the
loan account of the appellants at the time of final disposal of the SARFAESI
application is going to be fatal, since the respondent bank has been allowed to
continue their irregular and perverse action in guise of selling out the
property of the appellants.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
9, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATA – 700001
MISC. APPEAL NO. OF
2024
{DIARY NO. OF
2024}
(Arising
out of Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333 of 2024, arising
out of SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal- III Kolkata)
In the matter of;
An
appeal under Section 18 of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act’ 2002;
-
AND
–
In the matter of;
An
appeal from the Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333
of 2024, arising out of SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the
Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata;
-
AND
–
In the matter of;
1.
M/s. Global Aqua, a proprietorship
firm having its registered office at Premises being no. 44/1A, Shyamnagar Road,
Police Station Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700055, District – North 24 Parganas.
2.
Jayanta Chowdhury, proprietor of M/s.
Global Aqua, Son of Late Ajay Chowdhury, having Office and residence at
Premises being no. 44/1A, Shyamnagar Road, Police Station – Dum Dum, Kolkata –
700055, District North 24 Parganas.
---
---- APPELLANTS
–
VERSUS –
1.
Canara Bank, Chowringhee Branch, having
its Office address as Premises being no. 7, Kyd Street, Police Station – Park
Street, Kolkata – 700016.
2.
Authorised Officer, Canara Bank,
Chowringhee Branch, having its Office address as Premises being no. 7, Kyd
Street, Police Station – Park Street, Kolkata – 700016.
-----
---- RESPONDENTS
DETAILS OF APPEAL :
(I)
Particulars of the Appellant :
(i)
Name of the appellant no. 1 : Global
Aqua
Proprietorship Firm,
(ii)
Address of the appellant no. 1 :
Premises being no. 44/1A,
Shyamnagar Road, Police Station Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700055, District – North 24
Parganas.
(iii)
Address for service of Notices :
Premises being no. 44/1A,
Shyamnagar Road, Police Station Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700055, District – North 24
Parganas.
(iv)
Name of the appellant no. 2 :
Jayanta Chowdhury, proprietor of
M/s. Global Aqua, Son of Late Ajay Chowdhury,
(v)
Address of the Appellant no. 2:
Premises being no. 44/1A,
Shyamnagar Road, Police Station Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700055, District – North 24
Parganas.
(vi)
Address for Services of Notices:
Premises being no. 44/1A,
Shyamnagar Road, Police Station Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700055, District – North 24
Parganas.
(II)
Particulars of the Respondents :
(i)
Name of the Respondent no. 1: Canara
Bank
(ii)
Address of the Respondent no. 1 :
Canara Bank, Chowringhee Branch, having
its Office address as Premises being no. 7, Kyd Street, Police Station – Park
Street, Kolkata – 700016.
(iii)
Address for Services of Notices :
Canara Bank, Chowringhee Branch, having
its Office address as Premises being no. 7, Kyd Street, Police Station – Park
Street, Kolkata – 700016.
(iv)
Name of the Respondent No. 2 :
The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank,
(v)
Address of the Respondent No. 2:
The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank,
Chowringhee Branch, having its Office address as Premises being no. 7, Kyd
Street, Police Station – Park Street, Kolkata – 700016.
(vi)
Address for Services of Notices :
The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank,
Chowringhee Branch, having its Office address as Premises being no. 7, Kyd
Street, Police Station – Park Street, Kolkata – 700016.
(III)
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal :
The appellants declare that the subject matter of the
present appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.
This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act’ 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has arisen from an Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333
of 2024 arising out of SA/627/2024, (Global Aqua & Anr. – Versus – Canara
Bank & Anr.), by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal-III Kolkata. In such circumstances, this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal
possess requisite jurisdiction to receive, entertain and adjudicate the instant
appeal.
(IV)
Limitation :
The appellant further declares that the present appeal
is being filed well within the period of limitation, as is prescribed under the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act’ 2002. Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA no. 4333 of 2024 arising out
of SA/627/2024, (Global Aqua & Anr. – Versus – Canara Bank & Anr.), by
the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata, and
was made available on 13th day of October’ 2024.
(V)
Facts of the Case :-
1. The
appellants have placed an application under sub section (1) of Section 17 of
the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act’ 2002, and the challenge is the Possession Notice dated
03-07-2024, under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002, in respect of the Immovable Property categorized as Primary Security and
Collateral Security, wherein the Primary Security is in respect of the
Industrial Land as described and the Collateral Securities are the residential
occupation, and thereby asked to pay Rs. 11,51,75,616.12/- (Rupees Eleven Crore
Fifty One Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen and paise twelve)
only, within Sixty days. A copy of the said notice was pasted on the wall of
the premise of the appellants. The said possession notice issued by the
concerned respondent bank is arising out of the Notice dated 28/03/2023, under
Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act’ 2002, before the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III
Kolkata. The said application has been registered as SA/627/2024, wherein the
Respondents submitted their Affidavit of Objection and the Appellants submitted
Affidavit in Reply.
Photostat
Copies of the said SA/627/2024, with all annexures, and the Affidavit of
Objection of the Respondents and the Affidavit in Reply of the Appellants, are
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “A” Collectively.
2. That
the appellant number 2, is the proprietor of the Proprietorship Firm under the
name and style of M/s. Global Aqua and is engaged in the business of
processing, trading, and exports of fish and fishery products. Pertinently, the
applicant availed credit facilities since the month of November’ 2016, in the
nature of MSME Sahay, Car Loan, and Packing Credits, from the Respondent Bank,
wherein the applicant paid in full, the said MSME Sahay Loan of Rs. 60 Lakhs,
& Car Loan of Rs. 10 Lakhs, in terms prescribed by the Respondent Bank. The
Term Loan has been continuing in terms of the repayment prescribed by the
Respondent Bank.
3. That
the said Term Loan being No. 0145766000027, has been sanctioned by the
Respondent Bank considering the Credit worthiness of the Appellants, on
27-12-2017, for a sum of Rs. 8,90,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Ninety Lakhs)
only, which the appellants had been paying continuously to the respondent bank
which commenced as per instructions of the respondent bank on 27/01/2018. The appellants
has paid a sum of Rs. 1,83,52,560/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Three Lakhs Fifty
Two Thousand and Five Hundred Sixty) only, as on 31/03/2020, Rs. 1,17,01,000/-
(Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lakhs and One Thousand) only, as on 31/03/2021, Rs.
2,85,68,864/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Five Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand and
Eight Hundred Sixty Four) only, as on 31-03-2022, Rs. 2,23,42,230/- (Rupees Two
Crore Twenty Three Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Two Hundred Thirty) only, as on
31-03-2023, and Rs. 2,13,46,875/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirteen Lakhs Forty Six
Thousand and Eight Hundred Seventy Five) only, as on 31-03-2024, therefore the
total sum of repayment is Rs. 10,23,11,529/- (Rupees Ten Crore Twenty Three
Lakhs Eleven Thousand and Five Hundred Twenty Nine) only, made by the Appellants
to the Respondent Bank as on 31-03-2024. The terms of the repayment by the Appellants
showed his credit worthiness and good concise in making repayment to the
respondent bank.
4.
That the GECL is a loan for which 100%
guarantee would be provided by National Credit Guarantee Trustee Company
(NCGTC) and which will be extended in the form of additional working capital
term loan facility to eligible MSMEs/ Business Enterprises and interested
Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana (PMMY) borrowers. The loan tenure is
six years from the date of the first disbursement, including a two-year
moratorium period. The interest rate is 1 year MCLR plus 0.60% per annum,
or MSME - RLLR plus 0.60% per annum. The maximum interest rate is 9.25%
per annum. There is no pre-payment penalty if the loan is repaid
early. The account can be operated in combination with applicable interest
subvention schemes. The primary assets are those created out of the credit
facility. The GECL has been surfaced during the Covid-19 period pursuing
the financial situation in the Pandemic by the Government of India. In the
instant case in hand the Respondent Bank on due intervention of the Government
of India, has given sanctioned of Working Capital Term Loan under GECL Scheme
vide Ref. No. 0145/111/2020-21, dated 22.09.2020, for a sum of Rs. 160 Lakhs
(Rupees One Hundred Sixty Lakhs) only, to build up current assets, to meet
operational liabilities and restart the business activity of Processing,
Trading and Exports of Fish and Marine Products of the Appellants. The Tenure
of the said GECL is for 48 months, by giving 12 months moratorium on surfacing
the 7.50% rate of interest thereon, wherein the Primary Security assets created
out of the existing credit facility permitted. The Appellants did not apply for
such GECL credit facility. The Respondent Bank suo-moto has driven such
financial facility to the Appellants, considering his creditworthiness. The Appellants
obliged in making the repayment to the said GECL Financial facility to the respondent
bank. The Appellants had paid a sum of Rs. 3,39,774/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Thirty Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred Seventy Four) only, as on 31-03-2021,
Rs. 28,59,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs and Fifty Nine Thousand) only, as on
31-03-2022, Rs. 55,88,896/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand and
Eight Hundred Ninety Six) only, as on 31-03-2023, and Rs. 56,73,815/- (Rupees
Fifty Six Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand and Eight Hundred Fifteen) only, as on
31-03-2024, therefore a total sum of Rs. 1,44,61,485/- (Rupees One Crore Forty
Four Lakhs Sixty One Thousand and Four Hundred Eighty Five) only has been paid
by the Appellants to the Respondent Bank by 31-03-2024. Pertinently, the tenure
of the repayment has not yet been expired.
5. That
the Appellants had availed Packing Credit Limit understand as PC/FDB/FBE, from
the Respondent Bank on 16/03/2016, for a sum of Rs. 200 Lakhs for purchase of
raw material and for other pre-shipment expenses and for
discount/negotiation/purchase of export bills against confirmed orders/ letter
of credit of prime bank, backed by buyer wise policy, the period for repayment
is 90 days, the tenability of the said Packing Credit is one year from the date
of sanction. The Fresh Packing Credit Limit has been given by the Respondent
Bank on 24/11/2017 to the Appellants upon total payment realization of the
earlier Packing Credit limit, to the limit from 450 Lakhs to Rs. 550 Lakhs. The
Fresh Packing Credit Limit has been given by the Respondent Bank on 22/05/2019
to the Appellants upon total payment realization of the earlier Packing Credit
limit, to the limit of Rs. 550 Lakhs. The Fresh Packing Credit Limit has been
given by the Respondent Bank on 18/10/2019 to the Appellants upon total payment
realization of the earlier Packing Credit limit, to the limit 900 Lakhs. The
Fresh Packing Credit Limit has been given by the Respondent Bank on 22/03/2021
to the Appellants upon total payment realization of the earlier Packing Credit
limit, to the limit of Rs. 600 Lakhs. The Fresh Packing Credit Limit has been
given by the Respondent Bank on 07-09-2022 to the Appellants upon total payment
realization of the earlier Packing Credit limit, to the limit of Rs. 600 Lakhs.
The Fresh Packing Credit Limit has been given by the Respondent Bank on
29/02/2024 to the Appellants upon total payment realization of the earlier
Packing Credit limit, to the limit of Rs. 300 Lakhs. The Appellants has made
the repayment of the Packing Credit Limit time and again in terms prescribed by
the Respondent Bank.
6. That
the said Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023, had various errors which include the
housing loan and home secure loan which have never been disbursed to the appellants.
The said demand notice stated that the Loan accounts of the appellants as NPA
on 22-03-2024, yet the Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023 was on 28-03-2023.
Moreover, The said Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023, stated that the operation
and conduct of financial assistance or credit facilities had become irregular
since October, 2020. If that allegation is held to be true, the Respondent Bank
had sanctioned various renewals even in 2024. In the case in hand the
respondent Bank by a Letter being Reference No.
ROKOL/MSMESULABH/SANC/206A/2023-24, dated 29-02-2024Permitted renewal with
realignment of existing PC/FDB/FBE limit of Rs. 600.00 Lakhs to PC/FDB/FBE
limit of Rs. 300.00 Laks and OCC/ODBD limit of Rs. 300.00 Lakhs, for a period
of one year from the date of sanction. Such discrepancies in an important
demand Notice, which is the basis of initiating recourses under the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act’ 2002, cannot be taken in a casual approaches, so far. As
such said Demand Notice is bad in law for being factually incorrect more
particularly did not disclose the real debt. Furthermore, the said Demand
Notice included the Housing Loan and Home Secure Loan which has never been
disbursed to the Appellants. Therefore, the amount demanded in the said Demand
Notice is also bad in law and a clear indication of malpractice by the
Respondent Bank. Such unfair trade practices are against the guidelines set
forth by the Reserve Bank of India and as such the Reserve Bank of India had
issued notification / circular being RBI/2024-25/30 DoS.Co.PPG.SEC.1/11.01.005/2024-25,
dated 29-04-2024, addressing such issues and had directed the Financial
Institutions to review their practices regarding mode of disbursal of loan,
application of interest and other charges and take corrective action, including
system level changes, as may be necessary, to address the issues highlighted
above. The Respondent Bank had been wary about the non-disbursal of the housing
loan, yet they did not take any corrective measure.
7. That
the Appellants had deposited Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) only in
the month of February, 2024, out of which Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and
Fifty Thousand) only, was converted into Fixed Deposit whimsically by the
Respondent Bank, without obtaining any consent and knowledge of the Appellants.
If the Respondent Bank had been fair in its practice and realized the amount
towards GECL Loan the account of the appellants would not have been consider
for NPA, any more. Very surprisingly, the Respondent Bank had liquidated the
said Fixed Deposit of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifty Thousand)
only, on 05/03/2024, and the same was adjusted towards packing credit loans.
Moreover, after the realignment of the Appellants loan were sanctioned on
29-02-2024. Such unfair trade practices by the respondent bank can be construed
as mala fide and corrupt which has resulted in undue hardship upon the appellants.
8. That
the Appellants had sent an e-mail dated 22-03-2024 thereby informing the
respondent bank regarding its inability to pay the required GECL and term loan
dues and had further requested to liquidated the Fixed Deposits held with the
Respondent Bank towards the payment of the aforementioned payments.
Furthermore, the Appellants had stated the financial condition will change in
the month of April’ 2024, wherein the Appellants will be able to make the
payments.
9. That
the Respondent Bank replied to its e-mail dated 22-03-2024 stating inter alia
that the Fixed Deposits lying with the Respondent Bank are parts of Security
for the Loan availed by the Appellants and further stated that the Appellants
is required to clear the overdue otherwise the Appellants account would be
classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on that day.
10.
That the said notice dated 28/03/2023,
under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, has been suffering from
inherent defects including that on the headings of the Loan Amount allegedly
claimed to have been disbursed to the appellants. For instance the demand of
payment against Housing Loan is included in the demand notice but the same is a
fictitious loan transaction to burden the appellants, illegally.
11.
That so long a concrete statement of
account is not prepared showing the actual debt of the appellants, no notice
demanding payment on the basis of fictitious transaction can be served and
acted upon against any person. In the instant case the dubious stands of the
respondent bank has surfaced; Specially when in-spite of having the specific
knowledge of non disbursement of housing loan to the appellants they still
stick to their demand. Such arrogance and fraudulent approach of the respondent
bank are surprising and require immediate intervention of the Hon’ble Tribunal.
12.
That the desperation of the respondent
bank is also clearly visible from their conduct in issuing notice under Section
13(8) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002. This conduct itself is an attempt
to throttle the appellants, so that the respondent bank can behave like a
vulture on the dead body of the appellants. It is the obligation of the
respondent bank as to why they can claim money from the proposed disbursement
of housing loan, without correction of the mistake of the bank. Further
arrangement to realize, the said amount in itself to fraud and perjury.
13.
That the appellants states that the
notice under Section 13(8) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, is totally misplaced and
premature and as such it should be stayed by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
14.
That the Learned Advocate for the
respondent bank in his Notice dated 07/10/2024, and in his subsequent Corrigendum
dated 19th day of October’ 2024, have enhanced the demand to the
extent of Rs. 12,46,84,542.58 (Rupees Twelve Crore Forty Six Lakhs Eighty Four
Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two and paise Fifty Eight) only. This has been done
even after knowledge about the fictitious transaction prepared by the
bank. The Learned Advocate of the bank
has not take any steps.
15.
That the Appellants states that the
said notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002, has been suffering from inherent defects including that on the headings
of the Loan Amount allegedly claimed to have been disbursed to the appellants.
For instance the demand of payment against Housing Loan is included in the
demand notice but the same is a fictitious loan transaction to burden the appellants,
illegally.
16.
That the Appellants states that Housing
Loan has never been disbursed even after sanctioned by the Respondent Bank. No
money on account of Housing Loan No.
160001872780, has ever been given to the Appellants or to the Developer
favouring to the Appellants in Purchasing the Flat in terms of registered
Agreement for sale dated 21/10/2021, registered in Book No. I, Volume No:
1904-2021, Page No: 545024 to 545075, Being No. 190411911/2021, registered in
the office of the A.R.A. - IV KOLKATA. Surprisingly, the Respondent bank had
taken the EMIs from the Appellants, deducting the amount on their own without
any consent or intimation to the Appellants. The Appellants is astonished in
coming to the knowledge of such fact which surfaced in the purported notice
dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, and on
subsequent recourses adopted by the Respondent Bank against the Appellants. The
Appellants is not liable to pay any money on account of non-disbursement of
Housing Loan. The Appellants is entitled to get his money back with appropriate
banking rate of interest thereon which has been deducted and or taken by the
Respondent Bank as alleged illegal EMIs of the said Housing Loan.
17.
That the Appellants states that the Appellants
found another Loan Account being Housing Loan Secure Account Number
164003832543, in the said notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act’ 2002, which has never been applied by the Appellants and
sanctioned by the Respondent Bank, though a different loan account has been
surfaced at the behest of the Respondent Bank and surprisingly EMIs are being
deducted by the Respondent Bank without any information and consent of the Appellants.
Therefore the Appellants is entitled to get his money back with appropriate
banking rate of interest which has been illegally taken by the Respondent Bank.
18.
That the Appellants states that Housing
Loan No. 160001872780, and Housing Loan
Secure Account Number 164003832543, are the established cause of fraud by the
Respondent Bank against the Appellants to ruin his business and to reveal such
truth, the Forensic Audit is required by the independent Auditor upon the
necessary directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal.
19.
That the Appellants states that
Forensic Audit is necessary to unearth the true states of affaire in giving the
financial facilities by the Respondent Bank as well as in availing the
financial facilities by the Appellants, herein. More particularly in respect of
Housing Loan No. 160001872780, and
Housing Loan Secure Account Number 164003832543, which are never given or
disbursed by the Respondent Bank to the Appellants, though the EMIs have been
deducted and taken on such fraudulent fictitious Loan Accounts by the
respondent Bank.
20.
That the Appellants states that the
said notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002, does not disclose the Real Debts owed by the Respondent Bank against the Appellants,
herein.
21.
That the Appellants states that
the said notice dated 28/03/2023, under
Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, is a fictitious Demand Notice on
the Appellants. Pertinently no notice of demand has ever been served on the Appellants.
22.
That the Appellants states that the
alleged Primary Security being EMT of Industrial Land at Nawapala P.S. Bagnan,
Block Bagnan under Saratchandra Gram Panchayat, District Howrah, Pin -711303
comrising in RS Plot No. 482, 486, 504, 555, 544, 542, 543, under J.L. No. 25,
together with the factory shed, are the Plot of Land of Agricultural Nature on
the day, the Original Title Deed has been submitted by the Appellants to Create
the Equatable Mortgage against the Term
Loan Account Number 0145766000027, in the month of December’ 2017. The
Properties are of agricultural nature on the date of creation of the equitable
mortgage to the Respondent Bank, therefore the provisions of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act’ 2002, is not applicable in respect of the said properties of the
agricultural nature in terms of Section 31(i) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002.
23.
That the Appellants states that the
Classification of Loan Accounts as NPA has not been adhered to the RBI Guide
line, as the Respondent Bank has realigned the existing limits of the Loan
Account by the Sanctioned Memorandum dated 29-02-2024, and thereafter on elapse
of less than 30 (thirty) days, on 22-03-2024, the said Loan accounts has been
classified as NPA by the Respondent Bank, which is unbelievable and not
acceptable in the eye of Law. Facts showed the illegality in serving the
alleged purported notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act’ 2002, on the Appellants.
24.
That the Appellants states that the
Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, for immovable property,
dated 03-07-2024, is not in prescribed terms of Rule 8(1) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the description of the properties has not
been given with the butted and bounded. The agricultural property has been
described therein which is a blocked land. Such encumbrances have not been
disclosed even after having full knowledge.
25.
That the Appellants states that the
desperation of the respondent bank is also clearly visible from their conduct
in issuing notice under Section 13(8) of the Securitization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002. This
conduct itself is an attempt to throttle the appellants, so that the respondent
bank can behave like a vulture on the dead body of the appellants. It is the
obligation of the respondent bank as to why they can claim money from the
proposed disbursement of housing loan, without correction of the mistake of the
bank. Further arrangement to realize, the said amount in itself to fraud and
perjury.
26.
That the Appellants states that the
notice dated 07-10-2024, under Section 13(8) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002 is a final call of the illegal recourses of the Respondent Bank served on
the appellants. Such illegal recourses should be nipped in the bud.
27.
That the Appellants states that the
Respondent Bank in pursuing their illegal recourses headed to published the
E-Auction Sale Notice dated 11-11-2024, in the Bengali daily News Paper
“AAJKAL”, and in an English daily News Paper “Business Standard” on 11th
day of November’ 2024, wherein the statements have no concern with the real
facts, so far. The reserve price stated is not correct one, therein. Such an
attempt of the respondent bank is malign the image of the Appellants in his
business field. The respondent bank compelling the appellants by its whimsical
recourses in a much purported manner to
withdraw his business and lost his immovable properties.
28.
That the Appellants states that the
enigmatic approach of the respondent bank has created fauxpas to trap him illegally. A nationalized bank is not expected
to get involved in creating such atmosphere which is equivalent to literally
extortion. The Act itself resembles the scheme of vulture accounts more
familiar in the western countries. In the instant case a nationalized bank has
failed the expectation of the billions. As such the Hon’ble Tribunal should
school them accordingly.
29.
That being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the purported impugned the E-Auction Sale Notice dated
11-11-2024, in the Bengali daily News Paper “AAJKAL”, and in an English daily
News Paper “Business Standard” on 11th day of November’ 2024, as
well as the following Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, for
immovable property, dated 03-07-2024, as well as notice dated 28/03/2023, under
Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, the appellants preferred an
Interlocutory Application being IA/4333/24, before the Learned Debts Recovery
Tribunal-III Kolkata.
Photostat
copy of the Interlocutory Application being IA/4333/24, is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure – “B”.
30.
That the Learned Tribunal heard the
said Interlocutory Application bearing no. IA/4333/24, being an application to
set aside E-Auction Sale Notice dated 11-11-2024, on 10-12-2024, and was
pleased to refuse the prayer of the appellants without assigning any cogent
reasons thereof.
31.
That the Appellants states that the Learned Tribunal has only recorded the
submissions of the appellant that the demand notice 28-03-2023, had various
errors, including that on the housing loan but has missed to take note that the
said loan was never enjoyed by the appellants as it was never disbursed, at the
same time EMI’s from the saving account of the appellants for a considerable
period of time have been deducted. Such illegal conduct of the respondent bank
has vitiated the entire proceeding, Since the Notice under Section 13(2) of the
Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act’ 2002, apparently is
defective, so the subsequent actions in the proceeding have to be declared
defective.
32.
That the Appellants states that the appellant since are not a borrower in terms of
the housing loan pretext stated in the statement annexed to the Notice under
Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, therefore have no liability to the respondent bank,
on such premises prescribing the appellants as a defaulter of a loan amount
which has never been disbursed makes the entire proceeding faulty and illegal.
33.
That the Appellants states that the Learned Tribunal has recorded only the
submissions of the learned advocate for the respondent bank which is only
denial of the facts produced by the appellants, as such an oral denial cannot
and should not bring satisfaction to the Learned Tribunal in rejecting the
prayer for stay of e-auction sale notice.
34.
That the Appellants states that the Learned Tribunal has recorded the procedural
compliance of the respondent bank while issuing the e-auction sale notice, but
it was the mandatory duty of the Learned Tribunal to look into the fact that
Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002, since clearly
is defective, the subsequent recourses in the procedure is a nullity in the eye
of law.
35.
That the Appellants states that it is not clear from the order impugned as to how the
Learned Tribunal concluded that prima facie there is no substantive
irregularity in the impugned sale notice, since the order impugned lacks in
reasoning.
36.
That the Appellants states that observation of the Learned Tribunal as to declaration
of NPA of the loan account of the appellants at the time of final disposal of
the SARFAESI application is going to be fatal, since the respondent bank has
been allowed to continue their irregular and perverse action in guise of
selling out the property of the appellants.
37.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the Order No. 8,
dated 10-12-2024, passed in SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of
the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata, the appellants beg to prefer the
instant appeal therefrom under Section 18 of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act’ 2002, on the following, amongst others;
GROUND
I.
FOR
THAT
the Learned Tribunal has
only recorded the submissions of the appellant that the demand notice
28-03-2023, had various errors, including that on the housing loan but has
missed to take note that the said loan was never enjoyed by the appellants as
it was never disbursed, at the same time EMI’s from the saving account of the
appellants for a considerable period of time have been deducted. Such illegal
conduct of the respondent bank has vitiated the entire proceeding, Since the
Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002, apparently is
defective, so the subsequent actions in the proceeding have to be declared
defective;
II.
FOR THAT the appellants since are not a borrower in terms of the housing loan
pretext stated in the statement annexed to the Notice under Section 13(2) of
the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act’ 2002, therefore
have no liability to the respondent bank, on such premises prescribing the
appellants as a defaulter of a loan amount which has never been disbursed makes
the entire proceeding faulty and illegal;
III.
FOR THAT the Learned Tribunal has recorded only the submissions of the learned
advocate for the respondent bank which is only denial of the facts produced by
the appellants, as such an oral denial cannot and should not bring satisfaction
to the Learned Tribunal in rejecting the prayer for stay of e-auction sale
notice;
IV.
FOR THAT the Learned Tribunal has recorded the procedural compliance of the
respondent bank while issuing the e-auction sale notice, but it was the
mandatory duty of the Learned Tribunal to look into the fact that Notice under
Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, since clearly is defective, the subsequent recourses
in the procedure is a nullity in the eye of law;
V.
FOR THAT it is not clear from the order impugned as to how the Learned Tribunal
concluded that prima facie there is no substantive irregularity in the impugned
sale notice, since the order impugned lacks in reasoning;
VI.
FOR THAT observation of the Learned Tribunal as to declaration of NPA of the
loan account of the appellants at the time of final disposal of the SARFAESI
application is going to be fatal, since the respondent bank has been allowed to
continue their irregular and perverse action in guise of selling out the
property of the appellants;
VII. FOR THAT
in terms of the prescribed provisions of the Statute, the Authorised Officer
has to mention the true and correct Demand of Debt, in the Demand Notice under
Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002;
VIII. FOR THAT
the Respondent Bank have wrongly and prematurely classified the Loan accounts
of the Appellants as a Non Performing Assets (NPA) without following the rules
set forth by the Reserve Bank of India;
IX.
FOR
THAT
the said notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002, has been suffering from inherent defects including that on the headings
of the Loan Amount allegedly claimed to have been disbursed to the appellants.
For instance the demand of payment against Housing Loan is included in the
demand notice but the same is a fictitious loan transaction to burden the appellants,
illegally;
X.
FOR
THAT
so long a concrete statement of account is not prepared showing the actual debt
of the appellants, no notice demanding payment on the basis of fictitious
transaction can be served and acted upon against any person. In the instant
case the dubious stands of the respondent bank has surfaced; Specially when
in-spite of having the specific knowledge of non disbursement of housing loan
to the appellants they still stick to their demand. Such arrogance and
fraudulent approach of the respondent bank are surprising and require immediate
intervention of the Hon’ble Tribunal;
XI.
FOR
THAT
the desperation of the respondent bank is also clearly visible from their
conduct in issuing notice under Section 13(8) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002. This conduct itself is an attempt to throttle the appellants, so that the
respondent bank can behave like a vulture on the dead body of the appellants.
It is the obligation of the respondent bank as to why they can claim money from
the proposed disbursement of housing loan, without correction of the mistake of
the bank. Further arrangement to realize, the said amount in itself to fraud
and perjury;
XII. FOR THAT the
notice under Section 13(8) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, is totally misplaced
and premature and as such it should be stayed by the Hon’ble Tribunal;
XIII. FOR THAT
the Learned Advocate for the respondent bank in his Notice dated 07/10/2024,
and in his subsequent Corrigendum dated 19th day of October’ 2024,
have enhanced the demand to the extent of Rs. 12,46,84,542.58 (Rupees Twelve
Crore Forty Six Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two and paise
Fifty Eight) only. This has been done even after knowledge about the fictitious
transaction prepared by the bank. The
Learned Advocate of the bank has not take any steps;
XIV. FOR THAT
the said notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002, has been suffering from inherent defects including that on the headings
of the Loan Amount allegedly claimed to have been disbursed to the appellants.
For instance the demand of payment against Housing Loan is included in the
demand notice but the same is a fictitious loan transaction to burden the appellants,
illegally;
XV. FOR THAT
the Housing Loan has never been disbursed even after sanctioned by the
Respondent Bank. No money on account of Housing Loan No. 160001872780, has ever been given to the Appellants
or to the Developer favouring to the Appellants in Purchasing the Flat in terms
of registered Agreement for sale dated 21/10/2021, registered in Book No. I, Volume No:
1904-2021, Page No: 545024 to 545075, Being No. 190411911/2021, registered in
the office of the A.R.A. - IV KOLKATA. Surprisingly, the Respondent bank had
taken the EMIs from the Appellants, deducting the amount on their own without
any consent or intimation to the Appellants. The Appellants is astonished in
coming to the knowledge of such fact which surfaced in the purported notice
dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’ 2002, and on
subsequent recourses adopted by the Respondent Bank against the Appellants. The
Appellants is not liable to pay any money on account of non-disbursement of
Housing Loan. The Appellants is entitled to get his money back with appropriate
banking rate of interest thereon which has been deducted and or taken by the
Respondent Bank as alleged illegal EMIs of the said Housing Loan;
XVI. FOR THAT the
Appellants found another Loan Account being Housing Loan Secure Account Number
164003832543, in the said notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act’ 2002, which has never been applied by the Appellants and
sanctioned by the Respondent Bank, though a different loan account has been
surfaced at the behest of the Respondent Bank and surprisingly EMIs are being
deducted by the Respondent Bank without any information and consent of the Appellants.
Therefore the Appellants is entitled to get his money back with appropriate
banking rate of interest which has been illegally taken by the Respondent Bank;
XVII. FOR THAT
the Housing Loan No. 160001872780, and
Housing Loan Secure Account Number 164003832543, are the established cause of
fraud by the Respondent Bank against the Appellants to ruin his business and to
reveal such truth, the Forensic Audit is required by the independent Auditor
upon the necessary directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal;
XVIII.
FOR
THAT
the Forensic Audit is necessary to unearth the true states of affaire in giving
the financial facilities by the Respondent Bank as well as in availing the
financial facilities by the Appellants, herein. More particularly in respect of
Housing Loan No. 160001872780, and
Housing Loan Secure Account Number 164003832543, which are never given or
disbursed by the Respondent Bank to the Appellants, though the EMIs have been
deducted and taken on such fraudulent fictitious Loan Accounts by the
respondent Bank.
XIX. FOR THAT
the said notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002, does not disclose the Real Debts owed by the Respondent Bank against the Appellants,
herein;
XX. FOR THAT
the said notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002, is a fictitious Demand Notice on the Appellants. Pertinently no notice of
demand has ever been served on the Appellants;
XXI. FOR THAT
the alleged Primary Security being EMT of Industrial Land at Nawapala P.S.
Bagnan, Block Bagnan under Saratchandra Gram Panchayat, District Howrah, Pin
-711303 comrising in RS Plot No. 482, 486, 504, 555, 544, 542, 543, under J.L.
No. 25, together with the factory shed, are the Plot of Land of Agricultural
Nature on the day, the Original Title Deed has been submitted by the Appellants
to Create the Equatable Mortgage against
the Term Loan Account Number 0145766000027, in the month of December’ 2017. The
Properties are of agricultural nature on the date of creation of the equitable
mortgage to the Respondent Bank, therefore the provisions of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act’ 2002, is not applicable in respect of the said properties of the
agricultural nature in terms of Section 31(i) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002;
XXII. FOR THAT
the Classification of Loan Accounts as NPA has not been adhered to the RBI
Guide line, as the Respondent Bank has realigned the existing limits of the
Loan Account by the Sanctioned Memorandum dated 29-02-2024, and thereafter on
elapse of less than 30 (thirty) days, on 22-03-2024, the said Loan accounts has
been classified as NPA by the Respondent Bank, which is unbelievable and not
acceptable in the eye of Law. Facts showed the illegality in serving the
alleged purported notice dated 28/03/2023, under Section 13(2) of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act’ 2002, on the Appellants;
XXIII. FOR THAT
the Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, for immovable
property, dated 03-07-2024, is not in prescribed terms of Rule 8(1) of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the description of the properties
has not been given with the butted and bounded. The agricultural property has
been described therein which is a blocked land. Such encumbrances have not been
disclosed even after having full knowledge;
XXIV. FOR THAT
the desperation of the respondent bank is also clearly visible from their
conduct in issuing notice under Section 13(8) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002. This conduct itself is an attempt to throttle the appellants, so that the
respondent bank can behave like a vulture on the dead body of the appellants.
It is the obligation of the respondent bank as to why they can claim money from
the proposed disbursement of housing loan, without correction of the mistake of
the bank. Further arrangement to realize, the said amount in itself to fraud
and perjury;
XXV. FOR THAT
the notice dated 07-10-2024, under Section 13(8) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act’
2002 is a final call of the illegal recourses of the Respondent Bank served on
the appellants. Such illegal recourses should be nipped in the bud;
XXVI. FOR THAT
the Respondent Bank in pursuing their illegal recourses headed to published the
E-Auction Sale Notice dated 11-11-2024, in the Bengali daily News Paper
“AAJKAL”, and in an English daily News Paper “Business Standard” on 11th
day of November’ 2024, wherein the statements have no concern with the real
facts, so far. The reserve price stated is not correct one, therein. Such an
attempt of the respondent bank is malign the image of the Appellants in his
business field. The respondent bank compelling the appellants by its whimsical
recourses in a much purported manner to
withdraw his business and lost his immovable properties;
XXVII. FOR THAT
the enigmatic approach of the respondent bank has created fauxpas to trap him illegally. A nationalized bank is not expected
to get involved in creating such atmosphere which is equivalent to literally
extortion. The Act itself resembles the scheme of vulture accounts more
familiar in the western countries. In the instant case a nationalized bank has
failed the expectation of the billions. As such the Hon’ble Tribunal should
school them accordingly;
XXVIII.
FOR
THAT
the actions of the Respondent Bank is otherwise ex facie bad in law and hence
not maintainable;
(VI)
Relief sought :
In view of the facts mentioned in paragraph number 6
above, the appellants prays for the following reliefs;
(a) The impugned
Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA/4333/2024, arising out of SA/627/2024,
by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata be
set aside and quashed;
(b) Stay of operation of the impugned Order No. 8, dated 10-12-2024, passed in IA/4333/2024
arising out of SA/627/2024, by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal- III Kolkata, till disposal of the appeal;
(c) Costs of and incidental to this appeal be directed to
be borne by the respondents;
(d) Such further and /or other order or orders be passed
and /or direction or directions be given, as to this Appellate Tribunal may
deem, fit, and proper;
(VII)
Interim relief prayed for :
Pending final decision on the present appeal, the
appellants seeks issues of the following interim order;
(a) Pending disposal of the present appeal, the
respondents be restrained from taking any further action against the
appellants;
(b) Ad-interim orders it terms of prayer (a) above;
(c) Such further and /or other order or orders be passed
and /or direction or directions be given, as to this Appellate Tribunal may
deem, fit, and proper;
The appellants most humbly submits that the interim order prayed herein
above are necessarily required to be passed since refusal to pass such interim
order would render the present appeal in fructuous and leave the appellants
remediless.
Balance of convenience and inconvenience wholly lies in favour of grant
of such interim protection. The appellants have established a strong prima
facie case that warrants grant of interim protection, as prayed for.
(VIII)
Matter not pending with any other court, etc. :-
The appellants further declare that the matter
regarding which this appeal has been made is not pending before any court of
law or any other authority or any other tribunal.
(IX)
Particulars of the Bank Draft /Postal Order in respect
of the deposit of debts due in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the
Act, 2002;
(1) Name of the bank on which drawn
(2) Demand Draft number
Or ONLINE
(1) Number of Postal Order(s)
(2) Name of Issuing Post Office
(3) Date of Issue of Postal Order(s)
(4) Post Office at which payable
(X)
Particulars of [Bank Draft / Postal Order] in respect
of the fee paid in terms of rule 13 of these rule :
(1) Name of the bank on which drawn
(2) Demand Draft number
Or ONLINE
(1) Number of Postal Order(s)
(2) Name of Issuing Post Office
(3) Date of Issue of Postal Order(s)
(4) Post Office at which payable
(XI)
Details of Index :
An index in duplicate containing the list of documents to be relied upon
by the appellants is enclosed.
(XII)
List of Enclosures:
As per Index enclosed.
– VERIFICATION –
I, Jayanta Chowdhury,
Proprietor of M/s. Global Aqua, being the appellants, hereby solemnly verify
that the contents of paragraphs I to V are true to my personal knowledge and
belief and that I have not suppressed any material facts.
I sign this Verification on
this _____day of December’ 2024.
Signature
of the Appellants
Place
: Kolkata
Date
: _____December’ 2024
To,
Registrar,
Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
9, OLD
POST OFFICE STREET,
7TH
FLOOR, KOLKATA – 700001
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit
of Jayanta
Chowdhury, proprietor of M/s. Global Aqua, Son of Late Ajay Chowdhury, having
Office and residence at Premises being no. 44/1A, Shyamnagar Road, Police
Station – Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700055, District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal.
I,
the above deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1
: That I am the appellant no. 2, and the proprietor of the appellant no. 1, thoroughly
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present appeal and am
competent to swear this affidavit.
2
: That the facts contained in my accompanying petition / application, the contents
of which have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity may be read as
an integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
Verification
I,
the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, and no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified
this _____ day of December’ 2024, at the Kolkata.
DEPONENT
Identified
by me,
Advocate.
Prepared
in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Dated
: _____day of __________’ 2024.
Place
: Kolkata.
N O T A R Y
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA
9, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA – 700001
MISC. APPEAL NO.
OF 2024
{DIARY NO. OF 2024}
In
the matter of;
GLOBAL AQUA & ANR.
________APPELLANTS
·
VERSUS –
CANARA BANK & ANR. ________RESPONDENTS
AN APPEAL UNDER
SECTION 18 OF THE SARFAESI ACT 2002;
VOLUME - I
Advocate
on Record;
Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate High Court
Bar Association Room No. 15, High Court Calcutta, Mobile Number : 9883070666,
9836829666, Email : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com
Very useful
ReplyDelete