T R S GOEL HUF Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) IN pursuance of the Final Order/Recovery Certificate issued in O.A. 414/95 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi (thereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in favour of the 1st respondent-Union Bank of INdia (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent-Bank') against M/s. Logic Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Others, including Mr. T.R.S. Goel, the Recovery Officer attached and proclaimed for sale the property-Door No. 104, Defence Colony, New Delhi (with which we are concerned in this appeal) and another property.
(2.) Aggrieved, the appellant- T.R.S. Goel (HUF) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant/Objector') filed its objections before the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi, urging that the Hindu Undivided Family-T.R.S. Goel consists of Mr. T.R.S. Goel, his wife-Mrs. Shiromani Goel, his sons- Mr. Shantanu Goel and Mr. Himanshu Goel, and that the appellant/objector received the notice for attachment and sale proclamation, dated 16th August, 2001, pasted on the front side of the property in question. According to the appellant/objector, the recovery proceedings against its property cannot be initiated for the claims against M/s. Logic Systems Pvt. Ltd. simply because the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family- Mr. T.R.S. Goel is a Director. The appellant/objector claims that it is the absolute owner of the property bearing No. D-104, Defence Colony, New Delhi, which was purchased under the registered sale deed dated 18th February, 1984 from out of the funds of the Hindu Undivided Family. According to the appellant/objector, it is the sole residence of Mr. T.R.S. Goel and the other members of the appellant/objector, Mr. T.R.S. Goel, (HUF) and that it has not so far been partitioned. The appellant/objector, therefore, claims exemption from attachment and the sale of the residential house of the Hindu Undivided Family. The appellant/objector further claims that no efforts were made to realise the money from the company by selling its assets, before attaching and proclaiming for sale the property in question. The appellant/objector has also urged that valuable assets of the company are available.
The respondent-Bank filed a reply before the Recovery Officer wherein it urged that the attachment order dated 11th July, 2001 was issued in the recovery proceedings for a sum of Rs. 4 crores and odd, which is due from and outstanding against the certificate debtors to the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank denied the details of the Mr. T.R.S. Goel (HUF) for want of knowledge, but urged that it is entitled to proceeded against the attached property for the recovery of its dues on the basis of personal guarantee deed executed by Mr. T.R.S. Goel in favour of the respondent-Bank.
(3.) THE respondent-Bank also urged that at the time of the disbursement of the loan to the Company, Mr. T.R.S Goel had himself stated that he is a resident of another property, namely, No. D-30, Defence Colony, New Delhi.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.