Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private ... vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal4 December 2020Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Recovery Officer's attachment order, which on its face extends to properties of a third party, is not to be quashed merely because a secured creditor asserts a prior registered mortgage over those properties; the proper course for a person claiming an interest in attached property is to file a claim or objection before the Recovery Officer under the attachment order's own terms, and the Recovery Officer is then obliged to decide that claim by a reasoned and speaking order after affording a hearing.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision : 04.12.2020Appeal No. 408 of 2019CFM Asset Reconstruction Private LimitedA/3, 5th Floor, Safal Profitaire,Near Prahlad Nagar Garden,Ahmedabad - 363 610. ..... AppellantVersus1.Securities and Exchange Board of IndiaSEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400 051.2. Panoramic Universal LimitedOpp. New Passport office,Veer Savarkar Road,Prabhadevi,Mumbai - 400 025. ... RespondentsMr. Nirman Sharma, Advocate i/b Mr. Devanshu Desai,Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh,Advocate i/b The Law Point for Respondent No. 1.Mr. Bimal Rajasekhar, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Das,Mr. Raghuvamsi Meka and Mr. Mihir Deshmukh, Advocatesi/b Finsec Law Advisors for Respondent No. 2.CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerJustice M.T. Joshi, Judicial MemberPer : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)21. The appellant has filed the present appeal questioningthe legality and veracity of the order dated March 28, 2018passed by the Recovery Officer attaching movable andimmovable properties of Panoramic Universal Limited('PUL' for short).2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is,that in relation to the activity of Pancard Clubs Limited('PCL' for short), the Whole Time Member ('WTM' forshort) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI'for short) passed an order dated February 29, 2016 directingthe PCL to refund approximately Rs. 7035 crores to itsinvestors within three months. The appeal filed by theCompany against this order was dismissed by this Tribunal onMay 12, 2017. Since the amount was not paid the RecoveryOfficer issued an order dated March 28, 2018 attaching theproperties of PUL and its subsidiary companies which is asubsidiary company of PCL.3. It is alleged that PUL had taken a loan of Rs. 15 croreon February 24, 2015 from Apna Sahakari Bank Limited anda registered mortgage deed was executed on February 26,2015 whereby Flat Nos. 2201 and 2202, Tower No. 1, Sumer3Trinity Towers, Near Samna Press, Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400 025 was mortgaged. PUL defaulted in the repayment ofthe loan, as a result of which, Apna Sahakari Bank Limitedinitiated recovery proceedings under Securitization andReconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement ofSecurity Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short)pursuant to which an attachment order dated August 3, 2017was passed and thereafter the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Mumbai directed to take possession under Section 14 of theSARFAESI Act by an order of January 16, 2018.4. In the meanwhile, Apna Sahakari Bank Limitedassigned its rights in favour of the appellant by virtue of anassignment deed dated April 2, 2018. The appellant is an assetreconstruction company registered with RBI under Section 3of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter based on the order of theChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai dated January 16,2018 took possession of the flats on December 3, 2018. Atthat stage, the appellant came to know that the flats werealready under attachment pursuant to an order of theRecovery Officer dated March 28, 2018.45. The record indicates that several correspondence wereentered between the appellant and Recovery Officer forwithdrawing the attachment order and when nothinghappened the appellant filed the present appeal for thequashing of the order dated March 28, 2018 insofar as itrelates to the attachment of the two properties is concerned.6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties atlength through video conference. The contention of theappellant is, that the appellant has the first charge on theproperties in question and that their rights flow from theregistered mortgage deed executed by PUL in favour of ApnaSahakari Bank Limited. On the other hand, the contention ofthe respondent is, that the properties have been attachedpursuant to the order passed by the WTM against PCL andthat the trail of money indicates that the properties mentionedin the attachment order came from the funds of PCL.7. In this regard we find from a perusal of the attachmentorder dated March 28, 2018 that the Recovery Officer inexercise of the powers conferred under Section 28A of theSEBI Act, 1992 read with Section 226 and Rules 16 and 48 ofthe Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 directed:-5(a) All the movable and immovable properties

including the properties of PUL and its

subsidiaries / enterprises referred in the Annexure

A are hereby attached.

(b) .........

(c) ..........

(d) ..........

(e) ...........

(f) Claims/objections/encumbrances, if any, on the

properties attached shall be made in writing to the

Recovery Officer, SEBI within 21 days from the

date of this order.

8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the

appellant should file its claim / objection before the Recovery

Officer and if such a claim / objection is filed, the Recovery

Officer would be obligated to consider and pass a reasoned

and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing as

provided under the Act.

9. For the reasons stated aforesaid, we dispose of the

appeal directing the appellant to file a comprehensive

claim/objections before the Recovery Officer objecting to the

attachment of the two flats in question. If such an objection is 6

filed within two weeks from today the Recovery Officer will

decide the claim/objection by a reasoned and speaking order

after giving an opportunity of hearing within six weeks

thereafter.

10. The present matter was heard through video conference

due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to

sign a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order

could be issued by the registry. In these circumstances, this

order will be digitally signed by the Presiding Officer on

behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to

act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act

on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or

email.

Justice Tarun Agarwala TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2ab7 Presiding Officer AGARWAL 954d509c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e7999727d 404aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.12.04 21:11:14 +05'30'

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 04.12.2020 msb

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free