OM PRAKASH GROVER Vs. CANARA BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash Grover
Click here to view full judgement.
Ranjit Singh, J. -
(1.) THIS case seems to be one of the old vintage cases. Proceedings in this case are in progress since the year 1993 and shockingly these have -not been finalized till date. We are now in the year 2014. Unfortunate aspect is that this case may have to go back again to the Tribunal for which the blame would not rest onto parties concerned.
(2.) THOUGH in this appeal an order dated 25.1.2011 passed by DRT -III, Delhi is impugned on a number of grounds, but what would straightaway strike is the delay in pronouncing the judgment after hearing arguments and after reserving the same for pronouncement. Since no other issue is being dealt with while disposing of this appeal, detailed mention to the facts may not be needed. Still, it would be appropriate to make a brief narration of facts so as to appreciate the issue of delayed delivery of judgment by the Tribunal below. Canara Bank sanctioned a Packing Credit Limit for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with post sale credit limit and packing credit sub -limit to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs to respondents 2 and 3 in the year 1987. Smt. Jeeti Mumick created equitable mortgage of property No. 14/11, West Patel Naqar, New Delhi on 23.6.1987 to secure the credit facilities. The property of Smt. Jeeti Mumick was substituted with the property bearing No. 23/21, AB, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi of the appellant on 15.7.1988 On 29.11.1988, renewal / enhancement of the credit facilities was sought from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 15 lacs. Ad -hoc basis packing credit sub -limit to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs and OD/DOB cash incentive credit limit to the tune of Rs. 1.50 lacs was also permitted. Respondents 2 and 3 confirmed acknowledgement of their liability towards the respondent Canara Bank on 6.9.1990 to be Rs. 17,97,797.80 in the packing credit account and Rs. 79,353.50 in duty draw back and cash incentive limit account.
(3.) IT is alleged that respondent No. 3, Mr. H.S. Bakshi, the proprietor of M/s Cear Shoes dishonestly removed and disposed of entire stock of goods and machinery. Grievance is that the respondent Canara Bank failed to protect its hypothecated stock or to take any action against respondent No. 3 in any manner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.