191090000992022_33b6e985939076b4f5e740c103a4e0fd.pdf

1
Reportable / Non-reportable
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA
HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson 
APPEAL  124 OF 2022
(Arising out of IA 2449 of 2021 in O.A. No. 38 of 2005 – DRT-I Kolkata)
23.09.2024
                                                                                      
Victory Iron Works Ltd., having registered office at P-26, 
Benaras Road, Howrah – 711106. 
... Appellant
--Vs--
Canara Bank carrying on business at 25, Princep Street, PS 
Hare Street, Kolkata – 700072. 
                                                         ...... Respondent. 
1. Victory Castings Ltd., registered office at 8, HO Chi Minh 
Sarani, Suit No. 26, 2nd floor, PS Shakespeare Sarani, 
Kolkata – 700071. 
2. Satish Kumar Jhunjhunwala.
3. Saroj Kumra Jhunjhunwala. 
Both residing at No. 6, Lee Road, PS Bhowanipur, Kolkata 
– 700020. 
                                                                         ... Proforma Respondents
For Appellant
: Mr. Rohit Das, ld. Adv.
  
  
  Mr. D. Basu Roy,  ld. Adv. 
  Ms. S. Basu, ld. Adv. 
For Respondent:    Mr. Ravikiran Singh, ld. Adv.
  
 
The Appellate Tribunal
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
records. 
2.
Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 
21.12.2021 passed by learned DRT-I Kolkata in I.A. No. 2449 of 

2
2021 arising out of O.A. No. 38 of 2005 (Canara Bank Vs. Victory 
Castings LMT & Ors.).
3.
Bare perusal of the impugned order will show that an O.A. 
was filed in the year 2005 for issuing recovery certificate to the 
tune of Rs.8,31,06,133/-.  Thereafter, due to one or the other 
grounds O.A. was kept pending.  In the meantime, an order 
dated 02.08.2019 was passed by the learned DRT directing 
Defendant no.4, who is appellant herein, to deposit the title deed.  
This order was challenged by filing Misc. Appeal Dy No. 145 of 
2023 along with I.A. No. 93 of 2023 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act 
before this Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed on 09.02.2024 
holding that Section 5 application lacks merit.  Thereafter, the 
impugned order was passed wherein the Registrar of DRT-I 
Kolkata was directed to issue show cause notice to Defendant 
No.4 as to why an appropriate order be not passed against him 
for defying Tribunal’s order dated 02.08.2019.  Further direction 
was also issued to the Defendant no.4 to intimate the persons, in 
whose favour property was alienated, not to create any further 
third-party charge till disposal of the I.A. without leave of the 
Tribunal.   
4.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since 
this order is under challenge till date no reply to the show cause 
was given by the appellant, although all the facts are on record of 
the learned DRT.     

3
5.
As far as impugned order is concerned, there are two-fold 
directions.  Firstly, as far as issuance of show cause notice is 
concerned no final order was passed by the learned DRT.  It can 
only be looked into after the appellant submits any reply to the 
show cause and learned DRT considers the same and pass 
appropriate order.  
Hence, appellant is given liberty to file 
response to the show cause notice as per order of the learned 
DRT dated 21.12.2021 within four weeks from today.    
6.
It is made clear that since the appellant is in the knowledge 
of the show cause, learned DRT is not required to issue any 
formal notice.  This order itself shall be treated to be a notice to 
the appellant. 
7.
As far as other part of the order regarding intimating to the 
person in whose favour charge was alienated, appellant to 
communicate or intimate the person in whose favour property has 
been alienated.  That portion of the order does not in any manner 
affect the legal right of the appellant.  Hence, that order does not 
suffer any illegality or irregularity.  Accordingly, that portion of 
the order is upheld. 
8.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal, which is 
liable to be dismissed subject to the modification made 

…