COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Original defendants being aggrieved by the Order dated 12.7.2004 passed by the learned PO of DRT, Ernakulam, in Appeal 12/2004 in OA-167/2000. By the impugned Order the learned PO dismissed the appeal which the appellants have filed against the Order of the Recovery Officer dated 18.5.2004. Hence, this appeal to this Appellate Forum.
(2.) I have heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. K. Madhusoodanan, Sr. Manager (Legal) for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned Order dated 12.7.2004, Order dated 18.5.2004 of the Recovery Officer, so also other relevant records and in my view, the learned PO correctly passed the Order.
Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :
(3.) THE Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent No. 1 Bank namely, THE Federal Bank Ltd., against the defendants came to be decreed and recovery proceedings commenced. Decree was passed by the learned PO of DRT on 5.11.2002 and Recovery Certificate came to be issued for recovery of the sum from the Certificate Debtors of Rs. 12,16,02,364.96p. with interest @ 12.5% per annum from 23.6.2000 till date of final Order and thereafter, at 12% p.a. apart from costs etc. THEreafter, in due course, recovery proceedings commenced and property of the appellant was brought to sale to realise the amount which was due to the Bank from the Certificate Debtors. Proclamation of sale was issued incorporating all the terms and conditions of sale and accordingly sale was conducted, concluded and respondent No. 2 in the Appeal No. 12/2004, by name, Mr. M.T. Thomas, purchased the said property at the auction, which belonged to the Certificate debtor and which was mortgaged to the Bank. Before the learned PO, this sale was challenged by the Judgment Debtors on several grounds, in appeal filed under Section 30 of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993, but the learned PO rejected the appeal made by the appellant for setting aside the sale and upheld the Order of the Recovery Officer by a well reasoned Order, which is impugned before me.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.