Decided on March 05,2014



Ranjit Singh, J. - (1.) THROUGH this order appeal No. 328/2010 and application filed for review of order dated 21.4.2010 passed in appeal NO. 194/2009 are being disposed of together these being connected appeals.
(2.) MISCELLANEOUS Appeal NO. 194/2009 was filed to impugn the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Tribunal below in S.A. NO. 16/2009. Vide this order, the Tribunal had declined the interim relief regarding dispossession of the appellant from the property in question. In the appeal, the interim order in favour of the appellant was passed subject to his making a deposit of RS. 10 lacs in the name of the Registrar by 6.8.2009. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned for completion of pleadings. It may be worth a notice here that the appellant in this appeal is a tenant in the property in dispute. He was paying a monthly rent of RS. 1.5 lacs. As per the direction of the Tribunal, the appellant was required to deposit the rent regularly with the bank without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Stay accordingly was continued on these conditions and the appeal was disposed of. An application for review of this order dated 21.4.2010 was filed and this case accordingly rests at this stage. Appeal NO. 328/2010 has been filed by M/s. Leatheroid Plastics (P) Ltd. on 27.8.2010. On the basis of some deposit made by the appellant and by taking into account the deposit made by his tenant in the connected appeal, further recovery proceedings were stayed by this Tribunal. Thereafter, this appeal was adjourned on different dates for completion of pleadings. An application then was moved for issuing direction to the respondent to file the statement of account. Notice of this application was issued and the case had to be adjourned when no statement of account was filed by the bank. Even the bank Manager had to be called when the order for filing the statement of account was not being complied with. In this process, the appeal has seen various adjournments from the year 2010 and onwards on different grounds. Ultimately, the bank came up with an affidavit along with an application that statement account is not available. Copy of this was supplied to the appellant, and the appeal was accordingly adjourned for today and that is how it is being taken up for hearing now.
(3.) THE order under challenge in Appeal NO. 328/2010 has been passed by DRT -I, Delhi dismissing the S.A. of the appellant. However, the appellant was given two months time to pay the balance amount along with up -to -date interest as mentioned in the statement of account dated 1.6.2010 minus the amount deposited by the applicants, if any. Failing this, the bank was given liberty to proceed with the sale of the secured asset in accordance with law. The bank was directed not to appropriate the amount of the sale proceeds of the secured assets till the O.A. filed by the bank is finally disposed of, which is still pending. Concededly, the O.A. filed by the bank is still pending. This Tribunal, on 30.7.2009, by way of an interim measure has directed that the appellant would not be physically dispossessed from the property in question which continues to operate till date.;

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