SYNDICATE BANK Vs. CANARA BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant Syndicate Bank being aggrieved by the Order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Hyderabad, in IA No. 1294/2002 in OA-434/2001. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application made by the appellant Bank observing that DRT had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as there was no relationship of creditor and debtor as between the appellant Syndicate Bank and respondent No. 1 Canara Bank.
(2.) Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows:
OA No. 434/2001 is filed by the appellant Syndicate Bank against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are added as financial institutions. Defendant No. 7 is Canara Bank and defendant No. 8 is IDBI. The OA is filed to claim Rs. 23,73,17,672/- from defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Defendant No. 1 availed certain credit facilities from Syndicate Bank and defendant Nos. 7 and 8 as per the consortium agreement between them. Defendant No. 7 Canara Bank is the leader of the consortium.
It is averred that defendant Nos. 7 and 8 received payments to the extent of Rs. 784 lakhs during February and March, 2000 and out of that a sum of Rs. 654 lakhs is adjusted towards the overdue liabilities to it without sharing the same with the appellant Bank in terms of the inter se agreement. It is also the contention that respondents violated the terms of the inter se agreement and did not oblige the appellant Bank's request for sharing the recovery sum on 50:50 basis. It is further stated that complaint was filed by the appellant Bank before the High Power Committee but the said High Power Committee directed the appellants to pursue the matter before the DRT against the respondents.
(3.) IT is averred by the appellant Bank that respondent No. 1 Canara Bank is a nationalised Bank who is expected to act as per the terms of the agreement but has violated the terms of the inter se agreement by non-remitting its share to the extent of Rs. 327 lakhs in March, 2000. IT is contended that respondent No. 1 Canara Bank is utilising the same for recycling its advances and earning profits and in the said process the appellant Bank has lost opportunity to lend the said amount to the public. IT is averred that the respondent Bank is getting wrongful gain and is causing wrongful loss to the appellant Bank.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.