SURESH FAKIRCHAND MITTAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2004-1-6
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 14,2004

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pratibha Upasani, - (1.) THIS appeal is sought to be filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 9 Mr. Suresh Fakirchand Mittal, in the capacity as a guarantor, who had executed guarantee deed from time-to-time along with original defendant Nos. 2 to 8. The appellant was arraigned as party defendant No. 9 in the Original Application No. 567/1999 along with other defendants. By the impugned judgment and Order dated 22.1.2003, the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai allowed the said application in favour of the Bank i.e. respondent No. 1 herein and the defendants were liable to pay to the Bank sum of Rs. 10,03,74,766/- with future interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum with yearly rests from the date of the suit till realization of the amount.
(2.) Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed the appeal in this appellate Tribunal, which came to be numbered as Appeal No. 106/2003, challenging the impugned judgment and order. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount as per the requirement of provision of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came to be heard by this Appellate Forum on 14.1,2004. After hearing both the sides and after perusing the proceedings, this appellate Tribunal disposed of their waiver application being M.A. No. 186/2003 by a reasoned Order whereby the appellants in that appeal who were defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were directed to deposit with the office of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai sum of Rs. 95 lacs within eight weeks from the passing of the order. The present appeal is filed by one more defendant i.e. defendant No. 9 Suresh Fakirchand Mittal, being aggrieved by the same judgment and Order dated 22.1.2003.
(3.) THE defendant No. 9 also was arraigned by the applicant Bank in the said original application as a guarantor who had allegedly executed guarantee deed from time-to-time along with the defendant Nos. 2 to 8 and one with Mr. Jagdishchandra Mittal (since deceased). Since both these appeals arc arising from the same judgment and Order and the defendant role also was same, reasoning given by this Appellate Tribunal while disposing of M.A. No. 186/2003 has to be applied for disposing of this misc. application also. THErefore instead of duplicating work, time and energy can be saved by maintaining the same reasons, which this appellate Tribunal has given while disposing of M.A. No. 186/2003.;


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