RAJ AND COMPANY Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the order dated 16.2.2012 of the Presiding Officer of DRT -II, Chandigarh whereby the applications I.A. No. 493/2010 and I.A. No. 60/2012 filed by the appellants for amending the S.A. No. 121/2010 have been dismissed. The facts of the case indicate that appellant firm was granted a Cash Credit facility by the respondent Bank but when the loan account became irregular, it was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act followed by possession notice were issued by the Bank claiming symbolic possession over the mortgaged property. The borrower firm filed application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act (S.A. No. 121/2010) challenging the action of the Bank taken under Section 13(4) of the said Act and also claimed Rs. 10 lacs towards compensation and cost for the Bank's wrongful acts. The S.A. applicants, thereafter, filed an application (I.A. No. 493/2010) seeking certain amendments to the said S.A., including enhancement of the claim of compensation to 51 lacs, and then, in pursuance to the directions of the DRT, filed another application (I.A. No. 60/2012) clarifying the paragraphs of the S.A. to be amended/deleted as per the proposed amendments. The Tribunal below dismissed both the I.As. by the impugned order dated 16.2.2012, which has been assailed by the S.A. applicants in this appeal.

(2.) MR . Sanjeev Ralli, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the present appeal is being pressed only for the amendment sought for the enhancement of compensation amount from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 51 lacs on account of pecuniary loss suffered by the appellants due to wrongful and illegal actions of the respondent Bank taken under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. He has further submitted that for the aforesaid limited purpose, the amendments as sought for in Paragraphs 1(a) and (b), 5(iv)(g) and 5(xxxvii), under the heading 'Direct Pecuniary Loss', of the amendment application (I.A. No. 493/2010) are entitled to be allowed and the Tribunal below had erred in dismissing the amendment application in its entirety.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the parties learned Counsel and perused the record. So far as the power of the DRT to allow amendment in the S.A. is concerned, Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act provides that the DRT shall dispose of the S.A. in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the RDDBFI Act) and the rules made thereunder and Section 19(25) of the RDDBFI Act empowers the DRT to make any order to secure the ends of justice. The DRT has, thus, power to make any appropriate order to facilitate the effective adjudication of the SA and thereby allow the necessary amendment in the SA to secure the ends of justice.