SARJU DEVI Vs. BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD
LAWS(DR)-2006-2-12
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 24,2006

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Motilal B.Naik, - (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur in appeal No. 17 of 2004 on October 7, 2004.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for the first respondent-bank. According to Mr. B. S. Nagar, learned Counsel for the appellants, one Mr. Ram Manohar Natani, one of the directors of M/s. Divya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. who obtained loan from the respondent-bank herein, became defaulter, resulting in the institution of the OA before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by the respondent-bank. The suit has been decreed. While so, the respondent-bank decided to proceed under the Securitisation Act by serving notice under Section 13(2) on September 27, 2002, on the respondents and took further measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act for taking possession. It also filed an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act before the District Magistrate, Jaipur. However, the respondent-bank pursued execution proceedings before the Recovery Officer. These appellants have filed objections before the Recovery Officer with regard to their share in the property. On January 8, 2004, the Recovery Officer allowed the objections on the basis of a preliminary decree passed by the civil court, i.e., Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, holding that share of Mr. Ram Manohar Natani who is the principal borrower is restricted to 1/5th and that the entire property cannot be put to auction.
(3.) AS against this order of the Recovery Officer passed on January 8, 2004, the respondent-bank preferred an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 which was heard and decided on October 7, 2004, setting aside the order passed by the Recovery Officer holding that the learned Additional District Judge ignored the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as the plea taken in the original suit by the members of the family for making an individual property as a joint family property is not maintainable in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The objections raised by the objectors Smt. Sarju Devi and others are held to be not maintainable. It is this order which is challenged by these appellants in the appeal.;


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