Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
VIPULBHAI KALYANBHAI CHANCHAD vs BANK OF BARODA on 15 May 2023
**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, AHMEDABAD
(LAXMAN MADNANI, PRESIDING OFFICER)**
**CHAMBER APPEAL NO.3 OF 2023**
**IN**
**DIARY No.2050 OF 2022**
Date of Order :-15/05/2023
Vipulbhai Kalyanbhai Chanchad
** ...Appellant**
**Versus**
Bank of Baroda
** ...Respondent**
**Appearance:**
Mr. Tavaqqal Shaikh, Proxy on behalf of Ld. Counsel Mr. M.R. Pande, for the Appellant.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
1. 1. The Appellant has filed the present Chamber Appeal against the order dated 06/12/2022 passed by Ld. Registrar declining registration of the proposed SA in view of the fact that the Respondent Bank has not taken action u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act .
2. 2. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
3. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant has filed the present SA on 20/10/2022 before the office of this Tribunal and the Respondent Bank has issued notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on
22/12/2022 and the same is served upon the Appellant on 22/12/2022. As such, now the present SA has come within the purview of the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the same being maintainable, the order passed by Ld. Registrar dated 06/12/2022 may be quashed and set aside.
1. 4. It appears that admittedly when the Appellant sought to file SA u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Respondent Bank had not taken any action 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to and reproduce Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as under:
***"17. (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken:***
*Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.*
*Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section (1) of section 17."*
1. 5. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it becomes clear that this Tribunal cannot entertain Securitisation
Application of the Appellant in absence of any measure having been initiated / taken by the Respondent Bank. Though the Respondent Bank has issued Possession Notice dated 22/12/2022 u/s 13(4), the same is issued subsequent to filing of the SA before this Tribunal on 20/10/2022. Therefore, the SA sought to be filed by the Appellant at the relevant time before this Tribunal was premature and hence, Ld. Registrar has rightly declined its registration and the order passed by him dated 06/12/2022 does not require any interference.
1. 6. In the result, present Chamber Appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the Appellant shall be at liberty to file a fresh SA on the cause of action, if any, having arisen in his favour.
Pronounced in open Court on 15<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2023.
(Laxman Madnani) Presiding Officer DRT-II, Ahmedabad
\*ykb\*