S SRI NATARAJAN Vs. INDIAN BANK
LAWS(DR)-2006-8-1
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 30,2006

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THIS Miscellaneous appeal is directed as against the interim order dated 28.4.2006 in SA-26/2006 passed by DRT-II at Chennai.
(2.) The appellant filed SA-26-2006 before the DRT contending that he had purchased undivided share of 300 sq. ft. from one T. Velayudham, which is bearing Flat No. FI and he is in possession of same. The appellant has mentioned that he has not taken any loan from the respondent Bank nor he has mortgaged his property, and as such, he is a third party to the measures taken by the respondent Bank. As the property was brought to sale by public auction, to be held on 29.4.2006, the learned Presiding Officer without going into the merits of the case had directed the appellant herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 lakh directly to the respondent Bank within 4 weeks from the dale of order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent Bank. The case of the appellant is consistent that he had not availed any loan from the respondent Bank nor he had mortgaged the property. The appellant had purchased an undivided extent of 300 sq. ft. of land from one T. Velayudham for valuable consideration, and the construction was entrusted to one M/s. A.A. Construction Company and they have also constructed the flat, which is numbered as F-1, and the appellant is in possession of the same as a lawful owner. It is also stated that the respondents 2 and 3 are not the owners of the flat No. 3 and that the appellant herein is the owner. As such, the 1st respondent Bank is not entitled to bring flats F-1 and F-3 for sale. As the appellant is not a borrower, the condition imposed against the appellant to directly deposit a sum of Rs. 6 lakh with the respondent Bank, is not proper and he is not at all liable to pay any amount.
(3.) ON the contrary, the learned Advocate for the 1st respondent Bank would contend that Hat No. F-3 was also mortgaged to them and, therefore, that property was also included in the auction, to be held on 29.4.2006, and thereby they justified their stand in bringing the said property for sale.;


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