MILIND VINAYAK PANDYE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2004-6-15
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 09,2004

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pratibha Upasani, - (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No, 5 being aggrieved by the order dated 26th May, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 84 of 2004 in Original Application No. 51 of 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant/defendant No. 5 praying for granting injunction against defendant (co-defendant) Nos. 2 and 7 and other colludcrs/conspiralors from transferring, encumbering, alienating or dealing in any manner whatsoever with the assets of the defendant No. 1 company and for other reliefs.
(2.) I have heard Mr. A.M. Deo for the appellant. Mr. Bhambhalani for the respondent No. 1, Mr. S.G. Deshpande for the respondent Nos. 2 and 7. I have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer was right in rejecting the said application made by the appellant praying for injunction against the co-defendants in the original application filed by the Bank against all the defendants for recovery of applicant Bank's dues from these defendants. Proceedings reveal that the applicant Bank namely the State Bank of India has filed original application being Original Application No. 51 of 2003 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the RDDBFI Act against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 for recovery of Rs. 7, 78, 09, 350/- with costs and with future interest, etc. The Tribunal has also passed exparte interim injunction on the application taken out by the Bank against the defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 restraining or dealing in any manner in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the said application. That interim injunction is still in force. Thereafter, the defendant No. came up with the application alleging that valuable assets of the defendant No. 1 had been transferred to the interested parties i.e. defendant Nos. 2 and 7 through colluders and conspirators, playing fraud against the applicant Bank and the cosureties. It was on this background that this application of the defendant No. 5 came to be dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer by his impugned order.
(3.) IT is to be highlighted that the Bank was satisfied wITh the injunction order passed by the Tribunal earlier, restraining the defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 from transferring, encumbering or dealing in any manner whatsoever wITh the immovable property. The Bank, IT appears, was not keen about getting an order of injunction wITh respect to the hypothecated goods and, therefore, no application was made by the Bank wITh respect to those hypothecated goods. Thereafter this application was made by the appellant/defendant No. 5. The Bank while filing reply simply stated that they had no objection wITh respect to granting injunction against the defendant Nos. 2 and 7, but injunction should not be granted against the alleged colluders and conspirators, who were not parties to the Original Application.;


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