S N AGGARWAL Vs. CANARA BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 3.2.2006 in IA-48/2006 in OA-1250/1996 in DCP-1648, passed by the learned PO of DRT, Bangalore.
(2.) The appellant moved the DRT by filing in application IA-48/2006 to transfer the DCP-1648 from recovery officer, DRT, Bangalore to Recovery Officer, DRT, Delhi, and the same was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the 1st respondent.
Admittedly, DCP was and is pending before the RO, DRT, Bangalore. The appellant, who is the 6th defendant, contended that he was suffering from paralytic stroke and had undergone heart surgery and, therefore, moved an application under Section 19(23), 22 and 29 of the RDDB and FI Act, 1993, for the transfer of the DCP from DRT, Bangalore to DRT, Delhi, and the same was dismissed.
During the course of the argument of this appeal, it is pointed,out by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the DRT, Bangalore, while disposing of the transfer application, had made certain observations, with regard to the attachment of the property of the appellant, which is situated in Delhi. According to the appellant the said property is exempted from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of C.P.C. and neither the appellant nor the respondent Bank canvassed the said subject before the learned PO, but however, the learned PO has given a finding, which was not called for. It is further submitted that the appellant filed an application before the Recovery Officer contending that the house property is not attachable and the said petition was pending. But after passing of the order by the learned PO in the transfer application IA-48/2006, the Recovery Officer without assigning any reason, adopted the order passed by the learned PO and dismissed the petition of the appellant by order dated 24.2.2006. Against the same, the appellant has also preferred an appeal before the DRT, Bangalore, and the same is pending. The anxiety of the appellant is that the property sought to be attached is exempted under Section 60(ccc) and the same was not at all considered by the Recovery Officer and he was influenced by the order passed by the learned PO and based upon the said order, the appellant's petition was dismissed and, therefore, the appellant must be given an opportunity to put forward all his claim with regard to the exemption granted to the property sought to be attached.
(3.) AS far as the transfer of the DCP from Bangalore to Delhi is concerned, I am of the view that the learned PO has got every right under Sub-clause (23) of Section 19 to send the recovery certificate for execution from one Tribunal to the other Tribunal and the learned PO had taken into consideration all the aspects of the case and dismissed the application of the appellant. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said order and the same is confirmed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.