BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BAGWE UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order will dispose of prayer for interim relief as pressed in the Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiffs during the pendency of the Suit. The subject Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs, essentially for declaration and injunction on the claim founded on Section 53 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Plaintiff Bank is one of the creditor of the Defendant No. 1 Company. According to the Plaintiffs, they had filed Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,48,39,822/-(Rupees Four Crores Forty- eight Lakhs Thirty-nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-two Only) in this Court against the Defendant No. 1 and Ors. being Suit No. 4880 of 1998. After the coming into force of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and establishment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal ("D.R.T."), Mumbai in or about October 1999, the said Suit stood transferred to D.R.T.-II, Mumbai and was renumbered as original Application No. 1402 of 1999. According to the Plaintiffs, as can be discerned from Paragraph 7 of the Plaint, in the first week of October 1999, they learnt from reliable sources that the Defendants in the said Suit were trying to dispose of their properties to frustrate the claim of the Plaintiffs. For that reason, Plaintiffs moved an application on 13th October 1999, praying for interim relief of injunction against the Defendants in the said proceedings, restraining them from disposing of and/or parting with possession and/or alienating, encumbering and/or creating any right, title or interest in favour of anyone else in respect of and/or inducting anyone into all their properties including their right, title and interest in the properties as more particularly described in the Schedule being Exhibit A to the said Application, which included immovable property which is the subject matter of the present Suit. The Plaintiffs assert that on 14th October 1999, the D.R.T. was pleased to pass order of injunction against Defendant No. 1 herein in the following terms:

(2.) The Plaintiffs assert that the said order of injunction was sent by the Plaintiffs under the cover of their letter dated 19th November 1999 to the City Survey Officer, Santacruz (West), Mumbai, intimating the City Survey Office about passing of the injunction order in respect of the property in question. According to the Plaintiffs noting regarding the said injunction order has been made in the property register card on 3rd December 1999 in respect of the said property. The Plaintiffs further assert that by letter dated 11th January 2000, the Plaintiffs wrote to the City Survey Office for issuance of Index-II after recording injunction order passed by the D.R.T. The Plaintiffs also sent letter to Defendant No. 3 with request not to register/accept for registration any document for transfer of the property in question at the instance of Defendant No. 1 without prior intimation to the Plaintiffs. After all this, the Plaintiffs claim to have published public notice in the English Newspaper Indian Express dated 29th January 2001. The Plaintiffs further assert in Para 13 of the Plaint that in or about third week of January 2000, the Plaintiffs learnt that Defendant No. 1 with a view to defraud the Plaintiffs and all other creditors vide a purported Deed of Assignment dated 17th September 1999 executed on a non- judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/ (Rupees One Hundred), purportedly assigned all their right, title and interest in the immovable property in question to the Defendant No. 2 for a meagre consideration of Rs.24,50,000/-(Rupees Twenty-four Lakhs Fifty Thousand) as against the estimated market value of the said property to be over Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore). The Plaintiffs have summed up the circumstances in Para 27 of the Plaint, which according to them would suggest that the transaction in respect of the immovable property in favour of Defendant No. 2 by the Defendant No. 1 was fraudulent one. It will be apposite to refer to Para 27 of the Plaint, which reads thus:

(3.) On these assertions, the Plaintiffs have approached this Court for the following reliefs: