RAJPAL SOLANKI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2005-3-17
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 02,2005

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.J.Paratwar, - (1.) THE Certificate Debtor Nos. 4 and 5 in R.P. No. 117/2002 issued pursuant to the judgment in O.A. No. 396/2001 of this Tribunal have filed this application for withdrawal of transfer of Recovery Certificate by letter dated 19.7.2004 by my learned predecessor to P.O. DRT III, New Delhi certifying that Rs. 1,52,57,172-84 p. is recoverable. THE recovery certificate was sent for recovery with a reference to the properties of Certificate Debtors 4 and 5 as given below: (1) Residential House B.H. 13, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. (2) Venkeshwar International School, Dwarka, Papan Kalan, New Delhi. (3) M/s. Safety Carriers, Transport Nagar, Azad Pur, New Delhi THEre is unanimity amongst the parties that my learned predecessor issued that letter at the behest of the learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.
(2.) The foundation of the application is that the learned Recovery Officer, in the orders in the Roznama dated 14.5.2004 and 14.6.2004 in the recovery proceedings relying on mere affidavits of the Bank officers believed that the properties belong to Certificate Debtor Nos. 4 and 5. He did not investigate the claim as is required to be done as per Rule 11 of 2nd Schedule to Income Tax Act. It is contended that the certificate debtors Nos. 4 and 5 are not the owners. While Jitram (deceased father of CD No. 4 their being other heirs) was owner of 1st property, 2nd property belongs to Venkeshwar Society and 3rd to father defendant No. 5 namely Jatindersingh. Yet, learned Recovery Officer without any investigation proceed on the premises that they are the owners and as such moved my learned Predecessor for transferring the Recovery Certificate to DRT III, New Delhi for recovery with reference to above said properties. The actions of Recovery Officer and my learned predecessor are said to be unsustainable in law. In reply, the Bank has contended that the application such as this one is untenable moreso at the behest of Certificate Debtors. At the highest, such an application could have been filed by the real owners before the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Delhi since now he is seized of the matter. Moreover, CD Nos. 4 and 5 did not take any objection before learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal when he came to the impugned conclusion. It is contended that CD Nos. 4 and 5 are the real owners.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant has carried me through the relevant record of the matter and provisions of Rule 11 as also following 3 citations: (1) State Bank of India v. D. Venktaramana Reddy and Anr., I (2005) BC 113 (DRT/DRAT)=2005(1) Bank CLR 1 (DRAT Chen.). (2) I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. v. V.T. Prakash and Ors., III (2003) BC 180=2003 (Vol. 114) Company Cases 133. (3) Shyam Swamp Sharma and Anr. v. Canara Bank and Ors., III (2002) BC 535 (DB)=99 (2002) Delhi Law Times 475 (DB).;


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