RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Bank of Baroda through the Chief Manager – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Debt Recovery Tribunal – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, are independent in their operation, despite having similar objectives (!) (!) (!) .
Both Acts are complete codes in themselves and operate through their own procedures without overriding each other, even though they are complementary (!) (!) (!) .
An application under sub-section (10) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act can only be filed when there is no pending Original Application before the Tribunal. If an Original Application is pending, and the bank proceeds with SARFAESI action and recovers part of the dues, it may amend its claim under the Original Application; this does not invalidate the application (!) (!) .
The Tribunal's view that the Act of 2002 overrides the Act of 1993 is incorrect. Both Acts can be pursued simultaneously or sequentially, and the remedies are complementary, not mutually exclusive (!) (!) (!) .
The recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act do not preclude the bank from initiating or continuing proceedings under the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, especially when the sale of secured assets does not fully satisfy the dues (!) (!) .
The remedy under the Act of 1993 involves a judicial adjudication process where the claim is determined based on evidence, and a certificate of recovery is issued after following proper procedures (!) .
The presiding officer of the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application under the Act of 1993 on the ground that SARFAESI action had already been taken and recovery made, as the application could still be maintained and amended during the pendency of proceedings (!) (!) .
The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the original application, emphasizing that both statutes operate independently and that the bank's actions under SARFAESI do not bar proceedings under the DRT Act (!) .
The Court clarified that the remedies under both Acts are intended to provide quick and effective recovery of debts, and there is no legal bar to pursuing them concurrently or sequentially (!) (!) .
The Court directed the Tribunal to proceed with the original application according to law, ensuring that the bank's right to recover dues is preserved (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
ORDER (ORAL)
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned Senior Counsel for the Bank assisted by learned Advocate on record and learned counsel representing respondents no. 2 and 3. Respondents no. 4 to 9 have been though served by ordinary process and the service report is available on the record, they have chosen not to appear before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna also they have not put their appearance.
2. The petitioner Bank is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in OA 239 of 2014.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has held that the Original Application preferred by the Bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1993’) is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. In paragraph ‘21’ of the judgment the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has held as under:-
“21. It is pertinent to mention here that both the Acts operate within
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.