CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. JAIN MINERAL WATER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is to an order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal; whereby, an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (for brevity "2002 Act") preferred by the respondent is allowed with the cost of Rupees One Lac (Rs.1,00,000/-) on present petitioner. The order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal affirming the order dated 22.09.2017 is also under challenge.

(2.) Relevant facts briefly are that the respondent has extended various credit limits on 27.05.2013 for an aggregate of Rupees One Hundred Fifty Lacs as under:

(3.) The account was declared Non-performance Asset on 28.02.2016. The default in repayment resulted is outstanding of Rs. 1,40,14,475/-. The secured creditor/petitioner Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of 2002 Act on 11.03.2016. Objections were raised by the respondent on 28.04.2016. The objection was decided by the petitioner Bank's counsel on 13.05.2016. That possession notice under Section 13(4) of 2002 Act read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 13.06.2016. The respondent preferred Securitisation Application under Section 17 of 2002 Act. Challenging the proceedings and possession of secured asset on the ground that the objection raised by the respondent was not decided in the terms of Section 13 , more precisely in the terms of sub-section (3A) of Section 13 stating that the decision of objection by the Bank's Advocate is not a decision in the eyes of law and cannot be treated to be the decision by the secured creditor. The challenge found favour with the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22.09.2017, the Tribunal found: