PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. ARUN KUMAR ARORA
LAWS(DR)-2006-2-15
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 22,2006

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Motilal B.Naik, - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal(DRT), Chandigarh on 20.1.2006 in Interim Appeal No. 927/2005 and also the consequential order passed on 23.1.2006 in SA No. 69/2005.
(2.) Heard Mr. I .P. Singh. learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. N.C. Sahni, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, few facts which are necessary are recorded hereunder. The respondents mortgaged certain properties towards the loan facilities obtained by M/s. Partap Trading Company and M/s. Prabhat Trading Company owned by the respondents herein with their better halfs. As there was default, the appellant Bank involved provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act) and took possession of the property offered as security on behalf of M/s. Pratap Trading Company of which both the respondents are partners. Aggrieved by the steps taken by the appellant Bank, M/s. Pratap Trading Company represented by these two respondents filed objections before the DRT, Chandigarh under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. It appears, during pendency of the Securitisation application, some understanding is arrived at between the appellant Bank and the respondents according to which both the respondents were required to deposit certain amounts for redelivery of the property. Since Mr. Arun Kumar Arora, 1st respondent herein failed to deposit his share, the appellant Bank took possession of the half portion of the property which is stated to be his half share. Thereafter, the 1st respondent again moved the Tribunal for a direction to the appellant Bank to redeliver the possession to him. The DRT, Chandigarh passed an order directing the appellant Bank to redeliver the portion. Against the said order, the appellant Bank had filed an appeal before this appellate forum and this Tribuna) at that stage having satisfied itself on the basis of the grounds urged in the appeal, stayed the operation of the order. Letter, on the appearance of Mr. Arun Kumar Arora who is the contesting respondent, the appeal was disposed of while maintaining status quo with regard to the possession of the property directing the DRT. Chandigarh to dispose of the S.A. No. 69/2005 finally so that the controversy relating to the steps taken by the appellant Bank under the Securitisation Act could be set at rest. However, the said appeal is still pending before the DRT, Chandigarh. While so, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, filed questioning the legality and validity of the actions taken by- various Banks and financial institutions under the provisions of the Securitisation Act, decided the issues in Civil Writ Petition No. 2550 of 2005 in "Kalyani Sales Company and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr." by order dated 8.12.2005. Basing on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the above case, Mr. Arun Kumar Arora, the 1 st respondent herein moved an interim appeal No. 927/2005 in the pending SA No. 69/2005 before the DRT, Chandigarh, praying that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, the appellant Bank is not entitled to take physical possession and further sought a direction to the appellant Bank to redeliver the possession of the property to him.
(3.) THE said interim appeal was contested by the appellant Bank herein on the premise that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court would not be of any avail to the 1 st respondent who had sought interim relief and pleaded dismissal of the appeal. However, the Tribunal by order dated 20.1.2006 allowed the said interim appeal directing the secured creditor Bank to open the seal of portion of the premises i.e. Shop No. 18, New Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar and hand over the possession. A consequential order was also passed on 23.1.2006 to comply with the order with immediate effect. Thus, the present appeal came to be filed by the secured creditor Bank,;


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