Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Substitution of Assignee in Pending DRT Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act. Assignment of debt under Section 5 of SARFAESI Act entitles assignee to continue pending recovery proceedings without fresh filing, and amendment of cause title is permissible.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Alpha and Omega Diagnostics India Ltd., challenged a common order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which upheld the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) allowing an amendment application filed by the respondent, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (Arcil). The original recovery application (OA No.89 of 2005) was filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce against the petitioner for recovery of dues. Subsequently, the bank assigned its rights, title, and interest in the debt to Arcil under an assignment agreement dated 27 June 2008, pursuant to Section 5 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Arcil filed an application (Exhibit 188) before the DRT seeking amendment of the cause title to substitute itself as the applicant in place of the bank. The petitioner opposed the application, arguing that the assignment did not entitle Arcil to continue the proceedings without filing a fresh application. The DRT allowed the amendment, and the DRAT dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The High Court considered the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly Section 5 which deems the assignee to have all rights and remedies of the original lender, and Section 13 which enables the assignee to enforce security interest. The court also referred to Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows substitution of an assignee in pending proceedings. The court held that the assignment under the SARFAESI Act is a statutory assignment that transfers all rights, including the right to continue pending proceedings. The amendment sought was merely to reflect the change in the applicant's name and did not alter the nature of the claim. The court found no infirmity in the DRT's order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the substitution of Arcil as the applicant in the pending recovery proceedings.

Headnote

A) Banking Law - Assignment of Debt - Substitution of Assignee - Sections 5, 13 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) - Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act) - The issue was whether an asset reconstruction company, as assignee of a debt from a bank, could be substituted in pending recovery proceedings before the DRT. The court held that the assignment under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act transfers all rights and remedies of the original lender to the assignee, and the assignee is entitled to continue the pending proceedings without filing a fresh application. The DRT's order allowing amendment of the cause title was upheld. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Substitution of Party - Order 22 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - The court held that an assignee of a debt can be substituted as a party in pending proceedings under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, which applies to proceedings before the DRT. The amendment of the cause title to reflect the assignee as the applicant is permissible and does not change the nature of the claim. (Paras 5-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an assignee of a debt under the SARFAESI Act can be substituted in place of the original applicant in pending recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal without the need for a fresh application.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the DRT and DRAT. The court held that the assignment under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act transfers all rights and remedies to the assignee, and the assignee is entitled to continue pending proceedings. The amendment of the cause title was permissible and did not change the nature of the claim.

Law Points

  • Assignment of debt
  • Substitution of party
  • Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
  • 2002
  • Section 5
  • Section 13
  • Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act
  • 1993
  • Section 19
  • Order 22 Rule 10 CPC
  • Amendment of pleadings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 39

Writ Petition No.1268 of 2010

2010-08-09

Mohit S. Shah, C.J., S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

Mr.P.K.Samdani, Senior Advocate with Mr.Umesh Shetty, Mr.Sharan Jagtiani and Ms.Sheetal Shah i/b. M/s.Mehta & Girdharilal for petitioners; Mr.Birendra Saraf with Vinod Kothari and Mr.Saiyed i/b. Apex Law Partners for respondents.

Alpha and Omega Diagnostics India Ltd.

Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which upheld the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) allowing amendment of the cause title in a pending recovery application.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to quash the common order of the DRAT and the DRT allowing the amendment application of the respondent (Arcil) to substitute itself as the applicant in the pending recovery proceedings.

Filing Reason

The petitioner contended that the assignment of debt by Oriental Bank of Commerce to Arcil did not entitle Arcil to continue the pending proceedings without filing a fresh application, and that the DRT erred in allowing the amendment.

Previous Decisions

The DRT allowed the amendment application (Exhibit 188) and rejected the petitioner's application for dismissal of the original application. The DRAT dismissed the petitioner's appeal against that order.

Issues

Whether an assignee of a debt under the SARFAESI Act can be substituted in place of the original applicant in pending recovery proceedings before the DRT without filing a fresh application. Whether the DRT and DRAT correctly allowed the amendment of the cause title to reflect the assignee as the applicant.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the assignment did not automatically entitle Arcil to continue the proceedings; a fresh application was required. They also argued that the amendment would change the nature of the claim. Respondent argued that under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, the assignee acquires all rights and remedies of the original lender, including the right to continue pending proceedings. The amendment was merely to reflect the change in the applicant's name.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, an assignee of a debt acquires all rights and remedies of the original lender, including the right to continue pending recovery proceedings. The assignee can be substituted in place of the original applicant by way of amendment of the cause title, and no fresh application is required. Order 22 Rule 10 CPC applies to proceedings before the DRT.

Judgment Excerpts

The respondents contended that the said Oriental Bank of Commerce, pursuant to assignment agreement dated 27th June 2008 assigned all the financial assistance granted by the said bank to the petitioners/ original defendants together with all underlying security, interest and all its right title in favour of the first respondent – Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Relying upon the said agreement, the first respondent sought its impleadment and permission to amend the original application as per the schedule annexed to the Misc. Application (Exh. 188).

Procedural History

Oriental Bank of Commerce filed Original Application No.89 of 2005 before the DRT-II, Mumbai for recovery of dues from the petitioner. The bank assigned the debt to Arcil on 27 June 2008. Arcil filed Misc. Application (Exh. 188) seeking amendment of the cause title to substitute itself as the applicant. The DRT allowed the amendment and rejected the petitioner's application for dismissal. The petitioner appealed to the DRAT, which dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Acts & Sections

  • Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: 5, 13
  • Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: 19
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 22 Rule 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Substitution of Assignee in Pending DRT Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act. Assignment of debt under Section 5 of SARFAESI Act entitles assignee to continue pending recovery proceedings without fresh filin...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Wife's Petition to Set Aside Ex-Parte Order in Divorce Case — Liberal Approach Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application to set aside the ex-parte order, as the defend...