Decided on April 01,2014



Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by DRT -II, Delhi whereby earlier order passed by the same Tribunal on 23.11.2011 has been reviewed. The order dated 23.11.2011 was passed by the DRT on an application filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Jain in S.A. filed by Shri Narender Kumar Malthora. Prayer made in the miscellaneous application filed in this S.A. was to seek direction for approaching the respondent Bank for making payment of dues of the respondent Bank. The Tribunal below disposed of this application by directing the Bank to supply statement of account to the applicant and was given three weeks time to furnish the same. In case of any inconvenience, the parties were given liberty to approach the Tribunal again.
(2.) THE respondent Corporation Bank filed an application for review of this order and the Tribunal on 27.4.2012 has reviewed order dated 23.11.2011 whereby directions were issued for the appellant to deposit the amount with the Bank. The appellant has accordingly filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 27.4.2012. First submission made by the Counsel for the appellant is that there was no cause or reason for the Tribunal to review this order on application moved by the Bank. The reasons which have promoted the Tribunal below to review order dated 23.11.2001 are that the issue for deposit of the amount due to the Bank was decided by this Tribunal, whereas application before the Tribunal below was filed by the subsequent purchaser who is a third party. While reviewing the order the Tribunal below has rightly observed that this fact was not earlier pointed out and in the mean time the amount was also accepted. Counsel for the Bank, however, states that the demand draft, which was deposited by the appellant, was returned to him. Of course subsequently, the demand drafts have been again submitted to the Bank under the directions of this Tribunal. Instead of going into the technicalities which are being pleaded before me, I would deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal to bring the controversy to an end.
(3.) THE Bank had earlier approached this Tribunal in Appeal No. 291/2010, which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 4.1.2011. This Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Bank with a direction to the respondent borrower to pay pendente lite and future interest from 1.2.2003 @ 12% per annum simple on reducing balance basis till full realization of the debt. This interest was payable on the amount which had been noted in earlier part of the order of the Tribunal to be Rs. 8,59,235/ -. Further direction by the Tribunal was to award costs before the lower Court, Advocate's fees as per Bank's norms, but no costs was awarded for the appeal decided by this Tribunal earlier. The borrower was directed to deposit the entire amount with the Corporation Bank within 60 days from the date of the order. The appellant Bank, which was respondent here, was directed to file statement of residue amount as per the order with the Registrar of DRT -III along with a copy to be furnished to the respondent immediately. As observed by the Tribunal, in case the Bank failed to file statement of accounts, the respondent could move written application in this context before the Registrar of the Tribunal. There is some dispute raised whether this statement of accounts was filed or not in view of the earlier order. Though this controversy is not relevant in any manner now. I have heard Counsel for the parties. Without going into the issue whether the Tribunal below was justified in reviewing its earlier order or not, I am of the view that the issue can be settled by directing the appellant who is subsequent purchaser of the property, to deposit dues of the Bank which are payable as on date. It is stated before me that the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 17,61,000/ - on 23rd July, 2013. The Counsel for the Bank pleads no knowledge of this deposit but stated that if this amount has been deposited by the appellant, then it has to be given credit. If this amount stands deposited then this will be given due credit by the Bank. The respondent Bank, in the meantime may inform the appellant about the amount if any which is still due. On receipt of this information, the appellant shall discharge the liability within a period of two weeks. In case of any dispute, the appellant would first discharge his liability and then make any move to approach any Tribunal or this Tribunal. On payment of the dues title deed of the property shall be handed over to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.;

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