Relief to Punjab National Bank : DRAT Directs Fresh adjudication on submission of Additional Evidence Taken under Securitization Application
Since additional evidence is taken on record, it goes to the root of the matter hence the respondents should be given an opportunity to file evidence-in-rebuttal.
The Kolkata bench of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ) in a ruling in favour of Punjab National Bank has directed the fresh adjudication on submission of additional evidence taken under Securitization application. Punjab National Bank , the appellant challenged the Judgment and Order passed by DRT-2, Hyderabad in SA No.1263 of 2017 whereby the DRT allowed...
The Kolkata bench of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ) in a ruling in favour of Punjab National Bank has directed the fresh adjudication on submission of additional evidence taken under Securitization application.
Punjab National Bank , the appellant challenged the Judgment and Order passed by DRT-2, Hyderabad in SA No.1263 of 2017 whereby the DRT allowed the Securitization Application filed under Sec.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by setting aside the demand notice and possession notice.
Know How to Prepare Estimation and Viability for Project Reports? Know more Click here
The Securitization Application was filed by the respondents herein on the ground that the respondents who were applicants before the learned DRT are children of one Kesari Chand Tatiya and Usha Tatiya who availed the loan facility from the Bank after creating mortgage on the secured assets. Their parents died on 07.10.2006 and 14.02.2009 thereby creating rights in favour of the respondents on the secured asset. A Demand notice dated 09.03.2017 was issued. Thereafter possession notice was also issued on 11.05.2017.
Account was classified as NPA on 31.08.2009. The Securitization action taken by the Bank was challenged by the respondents herein by filing SA No.1263 of 2017 on the ground that the notice under Sec.13(2) dated 28.08.2013 was time-barred. Earlier sale notice was withdrawn. The Bank filed the response with the assertion that all the steps as required under law were taken by the Bank.
DRT allowed the Securitization Application on the ground that on the date of agreement of loan dated 25.02.2003 creation of mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds was yet to take place hence there was no security agreement as defined under Sec.2(1)(zb) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, it was held that without creation of valid security interest all further action undertaken by the Bank became infructuous, possession notice was also null and void.
Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation, Click Here
Pending Appeal, an IA is filed by the Appellant Bank annexing certain documents, copies of the same are duly served upon the learned counsel for the respondents. The additional evidence filed by the Bank has been taken on record wherein the counsel for respondents has prayed for the right to rebuttal.
As has been held in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.A. Mohamad Sanulla, additional evidence is to be taken on record and the respondents have the right to rebuttal. Since additional evidence is taken on record, it goes to the root of the matter hence the respondents should be given an opportunity to file evidence-in-rebuttal.
All-in-One Manual with Updated GST Laws & Provisions, Click here
Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava held that since the additional evidence is taken on record and that issue is to be reconsidered, hence it would be in the interest of justice that the matter should be remanded back to the learned DRT to decide it afresh after giving opportunity to the parties.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
