AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA
LAWS(DR)-2003-6-7
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 05,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)THE 1st respondent State Bank of Saurashtra (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 514/1996 againstsix defendants before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-I (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') wherein the 5th defendant is Mr. Lakshmi Chand, and the 6th defendant is Mr. B.K. Goel. THE claim was filed for the recovery of Rs. 11,54,449.70. All the defendants remained ex parte, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 14.5.1998, directing the defendants to pay the above said amount with interest and costs. THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also directed the sale of the hypothecated goods, and also of the mortgaged property. As per the averments in the O.A., 5th defendant Lakshmi Chand had created the mortgage. In execution of the above said final order, the Recovery Officer concerned attached the property said to have been mortgaged, and proclaimed it for sale.
(2.)Thereupon the appellant Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') filed his objections before the Recovery Officer (in R.C. 60/2001) claiming to be the owner in possession of the attached property. The learned Recovery Officer, after hearing both the sides, rejected the objections raised by the appellant by his order dated 8.3.2002. The appellant filed Appeal 18/2002 before the DRT-I, Delhi, challenging this order. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 20.3.2002 dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The respondent Bank has filed a reply opposing the appeal, and the appellant has also filed a rejoinder.
I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.

(3.)THE appellant is not a party to the O.A. He is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. As pointed out already, the property in question is stated to have been mortgaged on 31.3.1993 in favour of the respondent Bank for securing the repayment of the loan advanced to the principal borrowers. As per the averments in the O.A., the mortgage is stated to have been created by the 5th defendant Lakshmi Chand on 31.3.1993. But, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the property in question was purchased by the 5th defendant Lakshmi Chand and 6th defendant B.K. Goel (who are respondents 6 and 7 herein) by registered sale deed dated 10.1.1969. He also contends that B.K. Goel, one of the purchasers, executed a General Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the other purchaser Lakshmi Chand, authorising him, among other things, to sell the property to any person. A copy of this General Power of Attorney Deed has been produced with this appeal, and aperusal of the same shows that this Power of Attorney is dated 27.11.1973, and is an irrevocable one.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.