Back
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Srivastava, J
Mr. Imran Sha Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appeal concerns a challenge to the order dismissing a stay application related to a notice to vacate issued by the bank under the SARFAESI Act (!) (!) .
The appellant previously filed a suit challenging the same notices, which was dismissed, and the subsequent proceedings are barred by the principle of res judicata, as the issues raised are identical and have already been adjudicated on merits (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that the notice dated 11.06.2024 was issued pending a review petition and that the bank relied on an order passed by the District Magistrate that was not properly communicated to the appellant. The appellant contended that this rendered the notice invalid (!) .
The respondent and the tribunal countered that the order of the District Magistrate was already communicated and that the issues relating to the notices and proceedings have been previously decided. They also emphasized that no stay was granted in the review petition, and thus, the issuance of the notice was lawful (!) (!) (!) .
The tribunal found no illegality in the issuance of the notice or the proceedings, noting that the sale process had already been completed, with sale proceeds adjusted against the loan, thereby negating any prima facie case or likelihood of irreparable harm to the appellant (!) (!) .
The tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit, upheld the earlier order, and dismissed the appeal accordingly (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores that principles of res judicata prevent re-litigation of issues that have been finally settled, and the procedural steps taken by the bank under the SARFAESI Act were in accordance with law (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lawfulness of the notices and proceedings, and rejecting the appellant's claims regarding the pending review petition or procedural irregularities (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing arguments and reviewing prior dismissal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summarizing original and fresh challenges to notices. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. appellant's claims of invalid notice pending review. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. res judicata bars re-challenging settled issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. no grounds for stay; appeal dismissed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Nemani Srinivas for the appellant learned counsel for the respondent Ms. Aparajita Rao and perused the record.
2. Instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 19.07.2024 passed by Ld. DRT, Guwahati, in SA No. 71/2024, IA No 418 of 2024 whereby the Ld. DRT dismissed the IA No 418 of 2024 wherein relief for stay on the vacation notice issued by the bank on 11.06.2024 was sought for.2
3. As per the pleadings of the parties originally an SA No 93/2022 was filed by the appellant challenging the possession notice dated 14.09.2021 and demand notice dated 16.07.2019, which was dismissed by the Ld. DRT, Guwahati vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2023, Ld. DRT recorded a finding that the appellant was the borrower of the secured creditor. The loan account was classified as NPA. The secured creditor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
