DRAT remanded the Securitisation Application to the DRT for fresh adjudication, directing it to reconsider the matter alongside the Original Application, following the earlier remand of the O.A. judgment for re-evaluation.
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata Bench, headed by Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava (Chairperson), reviewed an appeal on Monday and held that when a Securitisation Application (S.A.) under the SARFAESI Act is decided based on findings in an Original Application (O.A.), and the O.A. is remanded for fresh adjudication, the S.A. must also be reconsidered to ensure a consistent and fair resolution of the issues, with all parties being afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) considered an appeal filed by Vijaya Bank against the judgment and order dated July 3, 2018, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (DRT-I), Hyderabad, in S.A. No. 13 of 2007. The case stemmed from a dispute over actions taken by the bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), following the classification of a loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The Respondents, including Waheeda Sultana as the Applicant in the S.A., challenged the measures taken by the bank, alleging fraudulent loan transactions and forged signatures on the loan documents.
The DRT had allowed the S.A., citing the rejection of the bank's claim in O.A. No. 45 of 2007, where the bank had sought a recovery certificate. However, the DRAT noted that the judgment in O.A. No. 45 of 2007 had already been remanded to the DRT for fresh adjudication in a related appeal. Since the S.A. was decided based on the earlier O.A. proceedings, the DRAT found it appropriate to remand the S.A. for reconsideration alongside the O.A.
The DRAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the DRT to decide both the S.A. and the O.A. afresh, ensuring an opportunity for all parties to be heard. The tribunal ordered the matter to be handled expeditiously and instructed copies of the order to be provided to all concerned parties and the DRT. No costs were imposed, and the case file was consigned to the record room.
Mr. Avishek Guha and Ms. Ritika Pal, Advocates represented the Appellant.
None have appeared for the Respondent.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources.
Comments