STAK CABLE ARTS Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2005-6-13
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 10,2005

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pratibha Upasani, - (1.) THIS appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original judgment-debtors. They have not filed any substantive appeal (so far) against the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai, in Original Application No. 3569 of 2000 in favour of the applicant-bank and against the present appellants. In due course, recovery proceedings being R. P. No. 191 of 2002 commenced and also came to be finally concluded. The judgment-debtors never paid a single farthing to the applicant-bank. Their property therefore was put to sale and was knocked down in favour of the bidder for consideration of Rs. 36,00,786. It was only after the sale was conducted that the appellants suddenly raised certain objections with respect to the manner in which the sale was conducted, making grievance that no public auction was carried out, that some other offer made by Mr. Sanjay Modi ought to have been considered by the Recovery Officer and that the Recovery Officer had sold the flat below the market price, etc. It will have to be highlighted that no substantive appeal has been filed by the appellants/judgement debtors challenging the legality or correctness of the impugned judgment and order whereby decree was passed against them and in favour of the bank, ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 38,56,298.18 with interest at the rate of 16.5 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., from November 16, 2000, till realisation of the amount and proportionate costs of Rs. 53,446.50.
(2.) As a logical conclusion of the sale of the said property in question, which was purchased by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. Sanjay Modi and Smt. Binita Modi, (auction purchasers) an order came to be passed directing the appellants/judgment debtors to vacate the flat by October 15, 2004, deposit the keys on the next hearing with the Debts Recovery Tribunal and submit all the mortgage documents along with share certificates. This order was challenged under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the RDB Act), before the learned Presiding Officer, who by his order dated October 12, 2004, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/judgment debtors. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is now filed by the appellants under Section 20 of the RDB Act before this Appellate Tribunal. The appellants have paid proportionate court fees of Rs. 30,000 on this appeal. The argument advanced by Mr. Nagori, the leaned advocate appearing for the appellants is that the office has taken out objection to the effect that the appellants have not taken out application for waiver under Section 21 of the RDB Act. It is submitted by Mr. Nagori that the appellants are not liable to pay any amount of pre-deposit towards compliance of Section 21 of the RDB Act. It is submitted by Mr. Nagori that the appellants are not challenging the final order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, disposing of the original application being O. A. No. 3569 of 2000 in favour of the applicant-bank and against the appellants, ordering them to pay to the applicant-bank a sum of Rs. 39,09,744.68 along with interest thereon and costs, etc. It is specifically argued that the appellants are not challenging the recovery certificate and that no substantive appeal has been filed by them. It is submitted by Mr. Nagori that what the appellants are challenging is the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer in appeal under Section 30 of the RDB Act, which was filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the Recovery Officer during the recovery proceedings.
(3.) MRS. Fadia appearing for the respondent-bank has vehemently opposed these contentions of Mr. Nagori submitting that since the appellants are judgment debtors and since the appeal is filed by them under Section 20 of the RDB Act, they will have to pay the amount of pre-deposit as contemplated and envisaged by Section 21 of the RDB Act.;


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