MS AMPEL vs BANK OF BARODA on 25 March 2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

Dated this 25th day of March, 2025

PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA

Presiding Officer (In-charge)

MA Dy. No.49 of 2025

in

SA No.675 of 2022

1.

M/s AMPEL, Represented by its Partner

Mr. P. Mazhar

No.1, Periyanna Maistry Street

Periamet, Chennai – 600 003

2.

P. Mazhar, Son of R. Athaullah Sahib

No.1, Periyanna Maistry Street

Periamet, Chennai – 600 003

…Applicants / Applicants

Versus

1.

The Authorised Officer

Bank of Baroda

Personal Stressed Asset Recovery Branch

Chennai Metro Region, First Floor

No.10, C.P. Ramasamy Street

Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018

2.

M/s Hanisha Enterprises

Represented by its Proprietor

Mr. D. Karthick

No.24, Vinayagar Koil Street

Second Cross, Vaniyambadi – 635 751

Vellore District

…Respondents / Respondents

Counsel on Record / Appeared

Applicants by

:

Ld. Counsel M/s S. Senthilnathan &

V. Kirubalani

Respondent No.1

:

M/s K. Radhakrishnamurthy

Respondent No.2

:

Notices dispensed.

ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY

1.

By this unnumbered MA filed under Section 19(25) of the RDB Act, 1993, the petitioner in MA seeks the modification of the final orders dated 22.09.2023 in SA No.675 of 2022 passed by the Ld.

Predecessor.

2.

The modification sought in the final order is to allow the SA instead of dismissal of the SA.

3.

The MA is filed on 08.01.2025 seeking the total obliteration of the effect of the final orders dated 22.09.2023. The matter is heard on maintainability, notices to 2nd respondent not yet ordered.

4.

The Ld. Counsel Shri Senthilnathan appearing for the petitioner had urged many grounds which touch the merits of the case which is already decided by the Ld. Predecessor.

5.

The present MA is not maintainable for the following reasons: - (a)

That the final order passed by the Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

(b)

Such an appeal is not filed by the petitioner.

(c)

The provisions of law invoked is under Section 19(25) of the RDB Act.

(d)

The provisions invoked by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner under Section 19(25) of the RDB Act enables the Tribunal to make such orders and give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.

(e)

The provisions of the law invoked can be resorted only to give effect to the orders or to prevent the abuse of process. The same cannot be invoked to reverse the findings, obliterate the effect of the judgment of the Ld. Predecessor and to nullify the effect of the final orders. These provisions cannot be invoked to usurp the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and to give a totally different verdict than what is rendered after hearing the parties concerned.

(f)

Further, by masquerading under Section 19(25) of the RDB

Act, the final orders rendered under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act would amount to circumvent the effect of the judgment that too after a period of almost 18 months.

(g)

The Ld. Counsel in his arguments had been urging the grounds which were already dealt and disposed by the Ld.

Predecessor.

(h)

The MA petition is also hit by the principles of res judicata.

For the aforesaid reasons this Tribunal does not find any merits to entertain the present unnumbered MA and hence the following: