PRITHPAL KAUR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
LAWS(DR)-2014-9-1
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 24,2014

Prithpal Kaur Appellant
VERSUS
Central Bank of India And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) SMT . Prithpal Kaur, who is a subsequent purchaser of property 28/18, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi from one late Gurbaksh Singh, who had mortgaged the said property, is fighting hard to save the same for which her Counsel has raised numerous legal and factual pleas. The Tribunal below otherwise has allowed the Original Application filed by the Central Bank of India, loaning Bank, which had advanced certain credit facilities to Kingston Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The Bank has been held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,57,40,392/ - from Kingston Electronics (respondent No. 2), Smt. Surjit Kaur (respondent No. 3), Mr. Manmohan Singh Nagpal (respondent No. 4), Mr. Mandeep Nagpal (respondent No. 6), Ms. Preeti (respondent No. 7) jointly and severally with interest @ 12% p.a. from 8th February, 1993 onwards till recovery with cost. The liability of respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7 is limited to the extent of the property inherited from Mr. S.S. Nagpal, their father. The appellant Smt. Prithpal Kaur has filed this Appeal to impugn this order. passed by the Tribunal below not to challenge the liability against the respondents, but only qua her property i.e., 28/18, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi which she claims to have purchased from late Gurbaksh Singh through sale deed dated 26th March, 1990 executed pursuant to agreement to sell dated 5th June, 1988. In fact, the appellant had not been impleaded as party defendant in the Original Application. She had to move an application for being impleaded when a letter addressed to one Mr. G.S. Bhatia was delivered at her residential address on 10th February, 2003. This communication revealed that certain accounts maintained with the respondent Bank was irregular and Mr. G.S. Bhatia could avail one -time settlement scheme propounded by Reserve Bank of India. Soon thereafter, the appellant found a notice affixed on outer wall of her house purporting to take possession of the same. The appellant thereafter made inquiries and learned that respondent -Bank had filed Original Application No. 282/1995 which was pending before the Tribunal below.
(2.) FURTHER inspection of the record revealed that the Bank was claiming the house of the appellant to be a mortgaged property and had arrayed Mr. G.S. Bhatia as purchaser of the said residential property. The appellant immediately preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for being impleaded as a necessary party in the Original Application. She also prayed for stay of the further proceedings. After getting a reply from the Bank, the Tribunal allowed the prayer of the appellant vide its order dated 20th May, 2004 for being impleaded as party in the Original Application. The copy of Original Application along with the documents was provided to the appellant. The appellant then filed Written Statement with all the documents in support of the same. The respondent Bank did not choose to file any rejoinder to the said Written Statement. In fact, when the appellant was impleaded as party in the Original Application, the evidence on behalf of the Bank had already been filed by way of affidavit.
(3.) MR . Ravinder Kapoor (AW -1) had filed affidavit of evidence in support of the Original Application though he was not employed or working in the branch in the year 1995 the period during which the loan facilities were extended to respondent No. 2. This witness was later given up and all the documents tendered by him were retendered through other witnesses. The grievance of the appellant is that Tribunal allowed the Bank to adopt this unauthorised mode despite Mr. Ravinder Kapoor himself having tendered these documents stating that he was posted in the branch only in 1994. The appellant had been granted permission to cross -examine witnesses, but some of the witnesses who were made to file the documents later could not be produced for cross -examination. Earlier the application moved by the appellant for grant of permission to cross -examine Bank witness was declined by the Tribunal initially and this order was upheld in an Appeal filed before this Tribunal, but permission was granted by the High Court when the appellant impugned these orders by filing a writ petition.;


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