Public excerpt

191090011452024_514a404aac77d2685db6a2e6246d8d92.pdf

Pages: 4Characters (full): 6366

Full judgment text and the official PDF are available after sign-in. This page shows an excerpt for discovery and research previews only.

Reportable/Non-Reportable
                                           
      
                 Misc.  Appeal Diary No. 1145 of   2024-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
       HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
               CHAIRPERSON
  Misc. Appeal Diary  No. 1145 of 2024
            (Arising out of S.A. 613 of 2024  in DRT,Visakhapatnam) 
Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra Centre, 
D. No. 9-13-45/2/9/1, 8th Floor, MVR Vinayagar Plaza, CBM Compound, 
VIP Road, Visakhapatnam -  530 020. 
                
         … Appellant
-Versus-
1. M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Construction Ventures, D. No. 2-19-3, Forest
Office Road, Madhav Nagar, Kakinada – 533 003;
2. Sri VNV Venkateshwara Rao, Partner of Sri Mahalakshmi Construction
Ventures, D. No. 2-19-3, Forest Office Road, Madhav Nagar,
Kakinada – 533 003;
3. Sri VNRK Sandeep,  
Partner & Guarantor of M/s. Mahalakshmi 
Construction Ventures, D. No.2-19-3, Forest Office Road, Madhav 
Nagar, Kakinada - 533 003;
4. Smt. VNVKK Sunitha, Partner & Guarantor of Sri Mahalakshmi 
Construction 
Ventures, 
D. 
No. 
2-19-3, 
Forest 
Office 
Road,
Madhav Nagar, Kakinada – 533 003;
5. Sri V Sarat Chandra, Guarantor of M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Construction 
Ventures, D. No. 2-19-3, Forest Office Road, Madhav Nagar,
Kakinada – 533 003;
6. Sri VKRSV Prasad Rao, Son of Sri V Pedda Venkateswarlu, Partner & 
Guarantor 
of 
M/s. 
Sri 
Mahalakshmi 
Construction 
Ventures, 
D. 
No. 
2-19-3, 
Forest 
Office 
Road, 
Madhav 
Nagar, 
Kakinada – 533 003;
7. Smt. V. Vasanthi, Partner & Guarantor of M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi 
Construction 
Ventures, 
D. 
No. 
2-19-3, 
Forest 
Office 
Road,
Madhav Nagar, Kakinada – 533 003;
8. Smt. V. Haritha, Partner & Guarantor of M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi 
Construction Ventures, D. No. 2-19-3, Forest Office Road, Madhav 
Nagar, Kakinada – 533 003. 
                       …  Respondents
Counsel for Appellant     
 …   
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee
Counsel for Respondents           
…   
K. Venugopal Rao
JUDGMENT                         
:   
14th January, 2025

2
      
  Misc.  Appeal Diary No. 1145 of   2024-DRAT-Kolkata
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
1.
Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order 
dated 26th November, 2024, passed by Learned DRT, 
Visakhapatnam, in S.A. 613 of 2024 (M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi 
Construction Ventures & Others   
-vs-  Punjab National 
Bank) 
whereby 
the 
Learned 
DRT 
has 
allowed               
I.A. 3646 of 2024 and stayed further proceedings till 
disposal of the S.A.  
2.
Feeling aggrieved, Appellant Bank preferred the appeal.  
3.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and 
perused the record.  
4.
At the very outset Learned Counsel for Appellant would 
submit that SARFAESI action was initiated by the Bank 
against Respondents on the basis of the notices issued 
under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act 
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).  Thereafter Sale Notice 
was issued on 20.11.2024 in two newspapers.  E-auction 
was fixed on 26.11.2024.  Learned Counsel for Appellant 
submitted that the Sale Notice was frustrated and hence 
becomes infructuous. Learned Counsel for Appellant would 
submit that the Learned DRT passed the impugned order on 
two counts; firstly that the notice was issued  against a dead 
person, namely, V. Sita Mahalakshmi who died on 08.9.2020 
and secondly notice under Section 8 (6) of the Act was not 
published in newspaper.  
5.
Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent would 
submit that one of the Partners of Respondent No. 1, M/s. 

3
      
  Misc.  Appeal Diary No. 1145 of   2024-DRAT-Kolkata
Sri Mahalakshmi Construction Ventures, namely Smt. V. Sita 
Mahalakshmi, died on 08.9.2020. This fact was brought to 
the notice of the Bank. Partnership Reconstitution Deed is 
annexed with the opposition.  It is further submitted that the 
notice under Rule 8 (6) was not published in newspaper. 
Accordingly, the impugned order was passed in accordance 
w
Search more judgments