CANARA BANK Vs. MITRE P MALLAR
LAWS(DR)-2007-2-1
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 08,2007

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred as against the order dated 6.11.2006 passed by DRT, Bangalore in LA. 563/2006 in OA 343/2005. I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and also perused the appeal papers. The respondents were set ex parte on 31.1.2007.
(2.) The appellant has filed an application under Section 19(13)(A) of the RDDB & FI Act, 1993 for attachment of the property before judgment, stating that the security already offered by the respondents was much less than the amounts due to the appellant Bank. The mortgaged property was a small building, and therefore, it would not fetch the amount to satisfy the appellant's claim in the OA. It is also stated that the appellant came to know from reliable sources, namely one of the customers of the Bank that the 1st respondent and her husband were trying to sell the property set out in the schedule to the petition thereunder, with a dishonest intention and with a view to defraud and delay the appellant, and if they do so, the appellant would be put to great hardship to recover the money. The appellant has also stated that the respondents were heavily indebted and they intend to screen the property from the reach of the creditors, including the appellant herein. The said application was opposed by the respondents before the DRT by filing counter, and the said counter was signed only by the respondents' Advocate, and not by the respondents. That in the said counter, it is stated that the respondent is ready to give an undertaking before the Court/Tribunal against the alienation of her interest over the said immovable property during the pendency of the case. A memorandum of facts was also filed along with counter affidavit by the respondent, that was also signed by the respondents' Advocate, wherein, it is stated that the respondent was out of reach of her Advocate and hence, he was not able to file respondents' affidavit along with the counter.
(3.) THE Tribunal was satisfied with the undertaking given in the counter and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.;


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