N S SUHAS Vs. CANARA BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 12.8.2005, made in IA-19/2004 in OA-440/2002 by the DRT at Bangalore.
The appellants are the defendants in the OA. They have filed an application to record the compromise entered into between the appellants and the respondent Bank and to treat the OA as settled out of Court, and the said petition was dismissed by the DRT by order dated 12.8.2005. Hence this appeal.
(2.) During the pendency of the OA, the 2nd defendant filed an application to record the settlement entered into between him and the Bank and to dismiss the OA. The 2nd appellant was a registered proprietor of the trade mark 'Eenadu' and the same was owned by him. That in order to discharge the amount payable to the respondent Bank, it was suggested by the Bank that the trade mark 'Eenadu' shall be assigned to it so that it can wipe out the debt due to them and accordingly the Deed of Assignment was entered into on the 8th day of October, 2003. As per the agreement, the 2nd appellant had agreed to transfer and assign the trade mark 'Eenadu' in favour of the respondent Bank for ten years period from 1.10.2003 to 30.9.2013. The assignee, viz. the respondent Bank, shall pay Rs. 76,000/- per month for the period of six years i.e. from 1.10.2003 to 30.9.2009, and thereafter Rs. 83,600/- per month from 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2013, out of which the respondent Bank agreed to adjust a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month for the period of ten years in satisfaction of the claim in the original application. Respondent Bank also agreed to pay the balance royalty amount regularly after adjusting Rs. 40,000/- per month. The respondent Bank had taken the assignment of the said trade mark from the appellants under the assignment deed dated 8.10.2003. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the amount payable to the respondent Bank stands adjusted and no amount is payable by the appellants. In view of the same, the matter is settled as per the assignment deed dated 8.10.2003, and the same has got to be recorded by the Tribunal that the matter has been settled out of Court.
The respondent Bank opposed the said application by filing a counter wherein they denied each and every one of the contentions in the affidavit filed by the appellants. The respondent Bank had stated that in order to enforce the assignment deed, it has got to be registered. As required under law, no affidavit was filed before the statutory Competent Authority and the user has also filed a caveat making the trade mark unenforceable. A letter has also been sent cancelling the alleged assignment. The appellants have also filed a suit in OS No. 2832/2004 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for recovery of amounts from the Bank and the same is pending. The respondent Bank also filed a suit in OS No. 7018/2004 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking cancellation of the assignment deed, stating it was obtained by fraud and mis-representation. As the validity of the assignment deed is questioned before the Civil Court, the action taken out by the appellants to record the compromise is not maintainable.
(3.) THE Tribunal was of the view that the assignment deed relied upon by the appellants is outside the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal as it is purely civil in nature and, therefore, the Tribunal cannot act upon the assignment deed, and dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.