Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Braja Ballav Paul vs Authorised Officer on 24 November, 2017
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1 November 24, 2017 Item No.95 md.
C.O. 2331 of 2017 Braja Ballav Paul
-Vs-
Authorised Officer, Allahabad Bank and another Mr. Samrat Mukherjee ... for the petitioner Mr. Dhiman Roy ..for the opposite party The order impugned has been passed by a Debts Recovery Tribunal, refusing to come to the aid of the petitioner to undo a sale conducted by the bank.
The petitioner claims that upon measures being taken under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by the opposite party-bank, the petitioner challenged the same by way of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal sometime in June, 2011. It does not appear that the petitioner took much interest in the matter thereafter and attempted to revive it sometime in 2017, by which time the property had long been sold and the transaction concluded.
According to the petitioner, the petition was filed in the DRT-II, which did not function for several years after 2011. Even though such aspect of the petitioner's argument is not 1 2 reflected in the order impugned dated June 14, 2017, what is evident is that the matter was transferred by DRT-II to DRT-III in 2014 and it came to be re-numbered in 2016. It is inconceivable that the petitioner was diligent in prosecuting the petition. It is more than evident that the petitioner did not take steps in the matter for which the matter remained pending.
In such a scenario, when the bank has sold the secured asset to a third party and the registration in such regard has been completed, the petitioner cannot ask to re-open the transaction and undo the sale. In the event the petitioner's challenge to the measures taken by the bank succeeds, the petitioner can be compensated in damages or the like.
The discretion exercised by the Debts Recovery Tribunal does not appear to be erroneous, far less perverse. The order impugned does not call for any interference.
C.O. 2331 of 2017 is dismissed with costs assessed at 200 GM.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 2 3 3