STATE BANK OF INDIA vs GIRDHARILAL BISHANMBARDAS NAYYAR on 14 August 2025

JUDGMENT

(14/08/2025)

01. This Miscellaneous Application No.54/ 2024 has filed by the applicants alleging therein that this SA No. 123/2013 was filed by the present respondent Nos.1 to 6 and that was disposed of on 21/11/2017 by the In-charge Presiding Officer of DRT, Aurangabad. The present applicants were original respondent Nos.1 and 2 in SA No. 123/2013. The SA No. 123/2013 was disposed of with observation that cost of Rs. 75,000/- is to be paid. The applicants are approaching this Hon’ble Tribunal seeking clarification as to whom costs is to be paid and how? As the applicants are ready to pay the cost as they have got DD No.322307 dated 22/05/2024 drawn of SBI, [Ambadas]

Mumbai for Rs. 75,000/- in favour of this Tribunal, as per copy of the Demand Draft (Annexure - A2) attached with the application.

02. It is further stated by the applicants that present respondent No. 7 M/s. Avon Corporation Ltd. has availed loan facilities from the applicant branch on the security of various immoveable properties. The respondent committed default in repayment of availed loan facilities, due to which loan account of respondent No.7 became non-performing account (N.P.A.). The applicants after realising that respondents have not complied the demand notice dated 15/04/2013, and initiated measures under section of the Securitization Act, 2002 by taking symbolic possession. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 6 being aggrieved by the Securitisation action of the applicant bank, approached to this Tribunal by filing SA No. 123/2013. The said SA No. 123/2013 was heard from time to time, and ultimately it [Ambadas]

was disposed of on 21/11/2017 on cost of Rs.75,000/-. Hence, applicants have preferred this MA directing the Registry to accept cost of Rs. 75,000/- as directed by order dated 21/11/2017 passed in SA No. 123/2013 and issue receipt in token thereof.

03. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 have filed reply of aforesaid MA and contested the same on the grounds that the applicant bank cannot take plea that order is not clear, whether the cost has to be paid to the present respondent Nos. 1 to 6 or is to be deposited with the Tribunal?. The said aspect was cleared in clause No.5 of the order dated 21/11/2017 passed in SA No. 123/2013. Order dated 21/11/2017 has never been challenged by the present applicant bank nor any clarification was sought in respect of the said order, and the present MA filed after a period of seven years cannot be entertained.

[Ambadas]

04. It is further alleged that the present applicant bank without honouring order dated 21/11/2017 passed in SA No.123/2013 for payment of Rs. 75,000/- to the applicants; have proceeded to initiate fresh action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act which is clear breach of the order dated 21/11/2017. When an order passed by the Tribunal was clear and unambiguous, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of court. The person who has violated the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be shown any leniency and prayed for dismissal of MA with heavy costs.

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record thoroughly and carefully.

06. The sum and substance of the MA of the applicants is that they are seeking the clarification as to whom cost is to be paid and how as it was not specified in order dated 21/11/2017 passed in SA No. 123/2013. In [Ambadas]

order to answer this question of the applicants, it is necessary to make reference of order dated 21/11/2017 which is as under; “IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PUNE (BEFORE HON’BLE I/C. PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT, AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET 21.11.2017 Sr. No.01 SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.123/2013

Girdharilal B Nayyar & Ors

Applicants Versus State Bank of India & Ors.

Defendants

Mr. Amol S. Gandhi –Advocate for the applicants. Mr. R.J. Singh – Advocate for defendant Nos. 1 & 2.

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar

Presiding Officer

21st November, 2017

ORDER

1. The learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 seeks adjournment to produce the original title deeds with respect to the secured assets and in particular those objected by the applicants.

2. The learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 also seeks adjournment to get the order dated 03rd February, 2017 clarified pursuant to which the present SA was to be [Ambadas]

heard within 2 months. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall get the order of extension as earlier as possible.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants have produced photocopies of possession notices dated 04th October, 2013 with respect to plot Nos. 2 to 5 and plot No. 63,82A, 82B,85,90,91,11,25,26,28 to 30, 61,62, 83A, 83B, 84, 86, to 89, 111, 129, 141 and 153. The learned counsels for the applicants have also produced the possession notice with respect to plot Nos. 9, 99 & 99A respectively. In all the learned counsel for the applicants have produced 6 possession notices. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have taken physical possession of the immovable properties except plot Nos. 2 to 5 and 9 described in possession notice dated 04th October, 2013 and 05th October, 2013 respectively.

4. At this stage the learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 makes the statement upon instructions of the officer Mr. Sanjay T. Gawhale Chief Manager that they are forthwith withdrawing the measures under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 undertaken to restore the possession of the secured assets to the applicants on 02nd December, 2017 at 12.00 noon.

5. In view of the above, the Securitisation Application filed by the applicants has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the applicants have fairly demanded the cost in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by way of court fees. The leaned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 concedes to pay the cost in the sum of Rs.5,000/-.

[Ambadas]

6. In view of the facts and circumstances in the present case the cost in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- will meet the ends of justice.

7. In view of the above, I pass the following order:

1) SA No.123/2013 stands disposed with cost of Rs.75,000/-.

2) All interlocutory applications stands disposed of with no order as to costs. The interim orders if any, stands vacated. Sd/- P.O.”

07. From the perusal of para-4 and 5 of the above order, it is clearly established that cost of Rs.75,000/- imposed by the Tribunal on the present applicants was to be paid to the present respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who were applicants in SA No. 123/2013. As per above order, the learned counsel for the bank made statement for withdrawing measures taken under section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act, and to restore the possession of the secured asset to the applicants, but the applicants [Ambadas]

made a demand of cost of Rs.l,50,000/- paid by way of Court fees. The learned counsel for the bank agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal imposed costs of Rs. 75,000/- upon the bank in order to compensate the present respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

08. Therefore, the present applicants are liable to pay the costs within reasonable time as no specific time was provided in above order by the learned Tribunal. Even if the reasonable time is permissible of three months, it was the responsibility of the applicants to pay the costs within that period or immediately move before the Tribunal to seek this clarification which has been sought by filing present MA on 13/08/2024. It was a deliberate delay on the part of applicants as no direction of this Tribunal was sought within a reasonable time. This application was moved by the applicants only when in SA No.179/2021, objection was raised on the maintainability [Ambadas]

of the SARFAESI action initiated by the bank without payment of cost of Rs.75,000/-. The liability of the applicants was created on 21/11/2017 itself as they never challenged order dated 21/11/2017. Therefore, the applicants are liable to pay this cost along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order dated 21/11/2017 till the final payment.

09. No doubt, the applicants have enclosed annexure-2 (copy of DD dated 22/05/2024 in favour of DRT, Aurangabad for Rs. 75,000/-) but the validity of this Demand Draft was up to three months and therefore the applicants are directed to make payment of the entire amount to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 alongwith interest as referred above. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are directed to issue proper receipt to the applicants after receipt of the payment of Rs.75,000/- along with interest as indicated above.

[Ambadas]

10. In view of the above observations, I pass the following order.

ORDER

A. The MA No. 54/2024 moved by the applicants is hereby allowed as indicated above. B. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any stands disposed of in terms of this order. C. Consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance. Announced in open Court

(Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Date: 14/08/2025

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad.