LAKSHMAN PRASAD AGARWAL vs KARUR VYSYA BANK on 4 March 2021

O R D E R

Both parties are represented by their respective learned counsel.

2. Petitioner’s case, in brief, may be stated as follows: -

3. The petitioner had filed S.A No.31 of 2020 before the DRT-1 Kolkata on 10.02.2020 and during the pendency of the aforesaid S.A, the petitioner filed an application in MA 91 of 2021 before this Tribunal under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Section 17A of the RDB Act 1993.

4. On 09.02.2021 this Tribunal heard the MA in part and fixedthe further hearing on 10.02.2021. On 10.02.2021 this Tribunal heard the matter and reserved the same for Orders on 10.02.2021. On 10.2.2021 SA No.31 of 2020 was alone in the list of

DRT-1 in charge, Kolkata as item no. 12 and the learned Presiding Officer in charge took up the said S.A No. 31 of 2020 at about 4.30 p.m. and when the learned counsel for the applicant in the S.A prayed for adjournment on the ground that the matter for transfer is pending before the DRAT Kolkata and that the DRAT had already heard the matter and order has been reserved.

5. However, learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1 in charge Kolkata instead of adjourning S.A No. 31 of 2020, directed the office that S.A No.31 of 2020; SA No.75 of 2020 and SA No. 82 of 2020 all be posted on 11.02.2021 i.e., the next day. On 11.02.2021 the matters before the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1 in charge Kolkata was adjourned to 25th February, 2021.

6. On 18.02.2021 the Respondent Bank filed an application in IA No.87 of 2021 before the DRAT Kolkata and the applicant filed written objections and the matter was heard and was reserved for orders.

7. This MA i.e., MA 91of 2021 filed along with MA 93, 95 of 2021 for expeditious disposal and transfer were heard along with IA No. 87of 2021 and were reserved for orders.

8. Subsequently, three S. As, which were pending before the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1 in charge Kolkata were taken up on 01.03.2021 and the Learned Presiding Officer dismissed the said three SAs. The Learned Presiding Officer in spite of having clear knowledge of the fact that the matter was pending before the DRAT Kolkata and orders were reserved therein without considering any of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant had proceeded to dismiss all the three SAs.

9. The applicant has stated that the orders of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1 in charge Kolkata in dismissing the 3 SAs notwithstanding the pendency of the M.As filed by the applicants before the DRAT Kolkata is an abuse of his powers.

10. The applicant has prayed that the orders dated 1.03.2021 passed in S.A No.31 of 2020; S.A No. 75 of 2020 and S.A 82 of 2020 all be set aside.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the Orders of the learned Presiding Officer in the SAs had been made for the purpose of making the order passed by the learned DRAT infructuous and that the orders had been passed in all three SAs in hastily for reasons best known to the learned Presiding Officer. Learned Counsel added that the learned Presiding Officer ought not to have ventured to pass order when three SAs were sought to be transferred to some other DRT and when the matter was reserved for orders and further added that the Tribunal below i.e., DRT-1, Kolkata functions under the supervision of the DRAT Kolkata which is the Appellate Tribunal for the Eastern Zone. Learned Counsel stated that the orders passed by the Tribunal below in SAs are required to be set aside in the interest of justice and more particularly to uphold judicial discipline.

12. Learned Counsel for the Creditor Bank stated that the SAs has been disposed of and that the only recourse available to the applicants in this case is for them is toprefer appeals against the said orders and seeks a remedy and stated that this application is not maintainable and prayed for a dismissal of this application.

13. Heard both sides.

14. Judicial propriety requires that the Tribunal below ought to have awaited the outcome of the orders to be passed in the M.A, which has been filed for an expeditious disposal and also for transfer of the 3 SAs to a DRT of competent jurisdiction more so, when orders had been reserved in the said MA. Even though the fact of the orders being reserved in the MA by this Tribunal having been brought to the knowledge of theLearned Presiding Officer, ( in charge ) he has chosen to dismiss the SAs in undue haste presumably for rendering the M.A pending in this Tribunal infructuous. The undue haste with which SAs were disposed of and proceedings of the Tribunal below reenforces the apprehension of the applicants and warrants interference by this Tribunal in the interest of justice. Therefore taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case , this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following orders in all the SAs dealt by the Learned Presiding Officer as set out below;

15. “The orders dated 01.03.2021 made in S.A No.82 of 2020; S.A No.75 of 2020 and S.A No. 31 of 2020 by the learned Presiding Officer DRT-1, Kolkata (in charge) are hereby set aside. All the aforestated 3 SAs are restored to file and the interim orders passed earlier in the all SAs are also restored”.

16. The Registrar is directed to send the File in S.A No.82 of 2020; S.A No.75 of 2020 and S.A No. 31 of 2020 to the Registrar, DRT-2, Kolkata on receipt a copy of this order. It is directed that the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Kolkata shall take up all the 3 SAs and dispose of them in accordance with the order of this Tribunal dated 2.03.2021. In the meanwhile, the Authorized Officerof the Creditor Bank shall stand restrained from in any way proceeding under the provision of SARFAESI Act till the final orders are passed in the said SAs.

17. It is reiterated that the Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Kolkata shall dispose of the 3 SAs in time.

18. In the result, this I.A is disposed of accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by meon this the 4th day of March, 2021). Sd/= (Dr. T. Ravi Shankar) Chairperson