MAHENDRA AGARWAL Vs. BANK OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(DR)-2003-8-3
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 19,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)RESPONDENT-Bank of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the RESPONDENT Bank') filed O.A. 427/98 against appellants 1 and 2 (defendant 2 and 3, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant/defendants') and respondents 2 to 6 herein (as defendants 1 and 4 to 7 respectively) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT). The respondent - Bank filed a miscellaneous application under Section 19 (13)(A) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the attachment of the property of the 3rd defendant (2nd appellant herein), bearing No. D-34, Basant Vihar, Gandhi Nagar, Bheelwara. Second appellant/3rd defendant filed a reply opposing this application urging, among other things, that the said property does not belong to her, that the sale letter relied upon by the respondent-Bank is not genuine, and cannot be construed as a sale deed.
(2.)This application along with certain other applications was considered by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, and was disposed of by the impugned order dated 27.5.2002. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed that no order of any kind can be passed in this matter but, still, directed that the defendants 2 and 3 will not transfer the ownership in the property if they are having any interest in the same, that status quo should be maintained with regard to the said property, and that the Sub-Registrar Bheelwara shall not register any document in respect of this property in favour of anybody without the orders.
As pointed out already, by this common order, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT had disposed of some other applications also. Aggrieved, the appellants 1 and 2, who are the defendants 2 and 3, and Shanti Devi Kedia, who is not a party to the proceedings before the DRT, have filed this appeal. In this appeal not only the order above said was challenged, but certain other orders covered by the same impugned order were also challenged. Subsequently, the appellants withdrew the appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal with regard to other orders and, confined their prayer in this appeal to the above said order [contained in Paras 6.1(A), (B), (C) and (D)] of the relief clause in the appeal.

(3.)THE respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal.


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