CALCUTTA PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Ronojit Kumar Mitra, -
(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred from an order dated 13th September, 2004, made by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (I), Kolkata, hereinafter referred to as the D.R.T. The appellant was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order. I have heard advocates for the parties.
(2.) It was submitted on behalf of the appellant, by advocate that the D.R.T. had failed and neglected to consider and adjudicate the question of the appellant having a first charge on the leasehold property where the secured goods were stored. He argued, that a no-objection certificate had been obtained by the bank at the time of granting the loan and that the bank and all parties concerned were fully aware of the prior charge of the appellant over the land. He contended, that the leasehold property could not be dealt with or disposed of by the D.R.T. in any manner, without adjudicating the right, title and interest of the appellant.
According to advocate for the respondent No.2, there were several anomalies and contradictions in the contentions of the appellant. He contended that it would appear from the records that the appellant in these proceedings sought to have its alleged right, title and interest, adjudicated and that he submitted the D.R.T. had no power or jurisdiction to do in accordance with law.
(3.) THE prayers in both the petitions before the D.R.T. and before this Appellate Tribunal are inter alia for payment of arrears of rent, payment of arrears of mesne profit, payment of all dues of the appellant from the sale proceeds of the sale of the property should it be sold and a direction on the bank to disclaim the leasehold property in favour of the appellant. Neither stay of operation nor setting aside of the impugned order was prayed for either in the applications before the D.R.T. or this Appellate Tribunal. THE submissions made by advocate for the appellants were made from the bar. THEre were no adverments in the pleadings in that respect. THE D.R.T. held in my view appropriately that any dispute between the lessor and the lessees were questions which these Tribunals could not decide in accordance with the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as "the RDDBFI Act". THE appellant was an intervenor, and the D.R.T. had heard its application on affidavits and disposed off the same. It is significant that prayers referred to hereinabove were clearly in respect to an alleged interest of the appellant and such interest remained disputed. THEse Tribunals are creatures of the statute and the Act, specifically provides for recovery of debts of banks and financial institutions by these Tribunals. THEse Tribunals are not empowered to decide questions of title or to direct any payment as prayed for. Clearly therefore, the grievance of the appellant, if any, cannot be adjudicated in this forum. THE appeal is clearly not maintainable in law and otherwise.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.