CANARA BANK Vs. VIJAY KUMAR
LAWS(DR)-2014-4-10
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 22,2014

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of the above noted two appears filed by Canara Bank. Appeal No. 51/2013 is directed against the order passed by DRT -I, Delhi. Limited grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the Tribunal below has relied upon the report submitted by the Local Commissioner appointed by it despite objection raised by the appellant against the report submitted by the Local Commissioner. Issue before the Tribunal below was regarding identification of the property which was claimed to have been mortgaged with the appellant -Bank. Since there was dispute whether the property in question was mortgaged with the appellant or State Bank of India, need arose for appointing a Local Commissioner to visit and verify the status of the property in question. The Tribunal below vide its order dated 19.5.2009 appointed Mr. Abhey Chauhan, Advocate as a Local Commissioner to visit and verify the status of the property in question. The Local Commissioner visited the site on 17.6.2009 along with Shri V.K. Gulati, an officer of the appellant Bank and Mr. S.K. Talwar, Counsel for the respondent. The Local Commissioner filed his report on 8.7.2009 concluding that on the basis of the information gathered from the Patwari and on local inquiry prima facie it revealed that the property in question is Plot Nos. 14 and 15, Khasra Nos. 389 and 391, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, and not plot No. 3 Khasra No. 389. Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, as disputed by the Canara Bank. The Tribunal below has noticed that the Local Commissioner had contacted Patwari who apprised him that Khasra Nos. 389 and 391 are correct. The Tribunal thus found the action of Local Commissioner justified in basing his report on the spot inquiry. Still the Local Commissioner was again asked to verify the status of the property in question. The Local Commissioner then submitted his report dated 29.8.2012, which he filed on 30.8.2012. In this report the Local Commissioner has recorded that the neighbours and people in the vicinity informed him that the property in question is mortgaged with State Bank of India and plot Nos. 16 and 17 adjoining to the property in question are mortgaged with Lakshmi Villas Bank but these were, however, in possession of the State Bank of India as there is only one door for all the four plots. As informed by the neighbours, a guard was also posted there by the State Bank of India, but he did not find the guard, present there at the time of his visit. The Tribunal below has accepted this report of the Local Commissioner and has rejected the objections filed by the appellant Bank.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant has made a single fold submission before me to urge that the report made by the Local Commissioner does not indicate if he had initiated any communication with the Revenue Authority or the S.D.M. for providing assistance while visiting the place and for submitting his report. The Local Commissioner report can not be discarded merely on the ground that he had not addressed communication to Revenue authorities. Perusal of the report would show that he had contacted the Patwari and other officials while inspecting the site to give his report. Once Local Commissioner was appointed and he has gone to the spot, which is not disputed as the representative of the appellant Bank was present as well, the report of he Local Commissioner could not be doubted and has rightly been relied upon by the Tribunal below. The submission that the Tribunal below did not record any evidence while deciding the case is also without any merit as the report of the Local Commissioner was enough to decide the limited issue. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal below. The appeal (No. 51 of 2013 in S.A. No. 25/2009, Delhi -I) is accordingly dismissed. Inward No. 752/2012 is directed against the order passed in S.A. No. 259/2008 filed by Shri Pardeep Kumar who was stated to be a tenant of Shri Vijay Kumar. The said S.A. was disposed of on the basis of order in passed is S.A. No. 25 of 2009 against which above noted appeal is filed. The Tribunal below in this case has observed that the DRT -I, Delhi in the matter of S.A. No. 25 of 2009, vide its order dated 26.9.2012 has already decided the issue of charge and relying on the same it is held that nothing would survive in this S.A. as well. This order is impugned by the Canara Bank through the present appeal. Since Appeal No. 51 of 2013 in S.A. No. 25 of 2009 (Delhi -I) has been dismissed, the fate of the present Inward No. 752/2012 in S.A. 259/2008 (Delhi -Ill) will the same and it is also dismissed accordingly.;


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