M/S TEN K. OVERSEAS LTD. & ORS. VS. THE DEBT RECOVERY APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

SYNOPSIS

The present special leave to appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and final order dated
18.12.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in cwp No. 36903 of
2019 to settle a substantial question of law once and for all.

LIST OF DATES

 10.2.2011- M/S Ten K. Overseas is engaged in manufacturing, trading and exporting of textile
and garment items.
 The Respondent Bank granted certain credit facilities to the company as the company was facing
some constraints.
 18.3.2013- The petitioners company went in for restructuring.
 6.3.2014- The Respondent Bank issued notice against the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act to pay a sum of Rs. 12,28,84,728.941/-
 1.5.2014- The Petitioners duly replied to the notice u/s 13(2).
 28.5.2014- The Respondents Bank issued another notice calling upon the Applicants to pay a
larger sum of Rs. 13,20,19,783.11/- mentioning that this notice supersedes our earlier notice
dated 6.3.2014. ANNEXURE P-1
 24.7.2014- The Petitioners duly submitted their objections in terms of Section 13(3-A) of the
SARFAESI Act. ANNEXURE P-2
 7.8.2014- The Respondent Bank issued notice to the petitioner under Section 13(4) of the 2002
Act without even replying to the objections of the Petitioners under Section 13(3-A) of the 2002
Act.
 1.2.2017- The Respondent Bank filed the document purporting to the sale notice issued to the
borrower. ANNEXURE P-3
 8.3.2017- The Respondent Bank conducted E-Auction without intimating the Petitioner and
without giving a mandatory 30 days sale notice to the Petitioner.
 27.3.2017- The Petitioner filed a petition in S.A No. 340 of 2017. ANNEXURE P-4
 14.9.2017- The Respondent Bank filed its reply to the petition of the Petitioner. ANNEXURE P-5
 3.10.2018- That S.A. no. 340 of 2017 was listed before then Ld. DRT, Chandigarh and on the said
dated the presiding officer was on leave. ANNEXURE P-6
 20.11.2018- The counsel for the petitioner could not appear as he had gone abroad, but the S.A.
no. 340 of 2017 was dismissed for default in prosecution. ANNEXURE P-7
 29.7.2019- The restoration application of the Petitioner was dismissed by the learned DRT,
Chandigarh. ANNEXURE P-8
 4.10.2019- The petitioner filed preferred an Appeal being Appeal no. 417/2019 before the
Learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. Along with the appeal, the Petitioner moved
 an interlocutory application (I.A No. 980/19) for waiver of the pre deposit as solicited under
section 18 of The Securitization Act.
 15.10.2019- The Appeal of the Petitioner along with the I.A No. 980/19 was dismissed for want
of 25% submission of pre-deposit. ANNEXURE P-9
 19.11.2019- The Petitioner filed a Writ in nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated
15.10.2019 (ANNEXURE P-9), 29.7.2019 (ANNEXURE P-8), 20.11.2018 (ANNEXURE P-7)
 18.12.2019- Vide Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court CWP No. 36903/2019 of the Petitioner
was dismissed and the order of The Appellate Tribunal was upheld.
 15.1.2020- Hence, the present SLP.

GROUNDS

 The scope of an Appeal under Section 18 of the 2002 Act is limited only to the orders made by
The Tribunal by exercise of its powers under Section 17 of the 2002 Act.
 In the instant case, the orders have been passed by the tribunal in exercise of its power under
Section 22(2)(f) & 22(2)(g) of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions
Act,1993.
 Even though Section 35 of the 2002 Act stipulates that the provisions of this act shall override
other laws, however Section 37 of the 2002 Act stipulates that the application of other laws are
not barred.
 The Orders dated 20.11.2018 (ANNEXURE P-7), 29.07.2019 (ANNEXURE P-8) are not orders per
se within the meaning of Section 17 as because ambit and scope of the orders under Section 17
are circumscribed by Section 17 Sub clause (3)&(4).
 No pre-deposit as such could have been solicited by the learned DRAT, Delhi as because the
appeal could not have entertained under Section 18 rather an appeal in the form of
Miscellaneous Appeal ought to have been filed by the Petitioner.
 The Petitioner’s objections in terms of Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act was not even replied
by the Respondent Bank which is in complete contravention of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules,2002.
 Respondent bank on 8.3.2017 conducted E-Auction without intimating the petitioner and
without giving a mandatory 30 days sale notice to the petitioner as required by Rule 8(6) of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
 Respondents intentionally with mala-fide intention grossly undervalued the property and fixed
the reserve price thereof on much lower side for its vested interest and the inference of
collusion between Bank and Auction Purchaser also cannot be ruled out.

CASES
Ghasi Ram v. Chait Ram Saini (1998) 6, SCC 200
Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi (1979) 4 SCC 365
Thiagarajan v. Venugopalaswamy B. Koil 2004 05 SCC 762
M Ramnarain (P) Ltd. v. State Trading Corpn. Of India Ltd. (1983) 3 SCC 75
J. Kumaradasan Nair v. Iric Sohan (2009) 12 SCC 175