PITHAMPUR STEELS LTD Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. Through this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner borrower has challenged the order dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure P 3) passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short DRAT) Allahabad by which the first respondent's Appeal No.R 122/2011 challenging the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short DRT) in Securitisation Application No.162/2011 has been allowed and the case has been remanded back to the DRT for deciding the questions other than the questions decided by the said order.

(2.) Briefly stated the petitioner company had availed the cash credit facility from the State Bank of India ( for short the SBI). As the petitioner defaulted in making payment a Civil Suit No.2 A/1998 for recovery of Rs.1,58,34,341.84/ N.P. was instituted against it by the SBI before the District Judge, Indore. On establishment of the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short RDDBFI Act) the said Civil Suit was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as T.A.No.905/98. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.11.2000 decreed the said TA in favour of the SBI. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act before the DRAT bearing No.R02/2001 was dismissed by the DRAT vide order dated 07.03.2011. The decree holder SBI filed execution proceedings for recovery of the decretal amount before the recovery officer. During the pendency of the execution on account of acquisition of rights and interest in the financial assets of the SBI by the first respondent Kotak Mahindra Bank, the first respondent was impleaded in the said execution in place of the SBI.

(3.) Thereafter, invoking the provision under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act) the first respondent Kotak Mahindra Bank issued a notice dated 31.12.2010 to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to discharge the liability. Since the petitioner failed to discharge its liability within time specified in the said notice, possession of the secured assets of the petitioner was taken by the first respondent under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act.