SURESH DHIR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
M.C. Jain, J. (Chairperson) -
(1.) THE appellant Mr. Suresh Dhir has challenged the order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the Tribunal below. Brief narration of facts would be helpful. The New Bank of India filed a suit against five defendants including Mr. Sushil Kanta Chakravorty in the year 1988. The New Bank of India has merged in the respondent herein -Punjab National Bank. Mr. Sushil Kanta Chakravorty owned bonds known as US 64 bonds worth about Rs. 30 lakh. He expired on 2.6.2003. Before his death, Mr. Sushil Kanta Chakravorty nominated the present appellant Mr. Suresh Dhir as his nominee for the US 64 bonds in question. On the basis of such nomination, the UTI transferred the bonds in favour of the appellant Mr. Suresh Dhir. The respondent herein -Punjab National Bank moved an application for attachment before judgment of the bonds of Mr. Sushil Kanta Chakravorty. On 18.7.2003, the Tribunal below passed an order directing the UTI not to release the proceeds of the US 64 bonds in question until further orders. The present appellant made an LA. No. 182/2004 before the Tribunal below that the restraint order was not to apply to him and necessary clarification be issued. The Tribunal below declined this prayer whereby the appellant is aggrieved and hence this appeal.
(2.) I have heard Mr. B.B. Khare, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A.D. Mahendru, learned Counsel for the respondent -Bank. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant Mr. Suresh Dhir is not a defendant in O. A. pending before the Tribunal below and the provisions of Section 19(13)(A) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the RDDBFI Act, 1993") could not be applicable to him. He was not the legal heir of any of the defendants in the O.A. already effected the transfer of the US 64 bonds in question in favour of the appellant on the basis of nomination made by late Mr. Sushil Kanta Chakravorty before being served to the attachment/restraint order passed by the Tribunal below and the status quo order passed by the Tribunal below could not be given effect to as status quo ante. According to him, only a competent civil Court could cancel the mutation/transfer of US 64 bonds in question already made by the UTI in favour of the appellant on the basis of nomination made by the original holder late Mr. Sushil Kanta Chakravorty. He tried to support his arguments by a ruling of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Jaymac Lasetron P. Ltd. and Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. in which reference was also been made to a decision of Hon'ble Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Preeti Rungta v. Income Tax Officer .
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent -Bank has urged that Mr. Sushil Kanta Chakravorty was a debtor of the Bank and the Bank had filed the O.A. against him and others. It came to the knowledge of the Bank through one of the defendants that Mr. Sushil Kanta Chakravorty was having in his name US 64 bonds of the value of nearly Rs. 30 lakh and the appellant (Mr. Suresh Dhir) was a nominee in the said US 64 bonds. The Bank then immediately filed an application for attachment of the bonds in question as the Bank had first lien on the same. The Tribunal below then passed the order dated 13.7.2003 directing the UTI not to release the proceeds of the bonds in question. However, he submitted, before the UTI could act upon those orders, the appellant Mr. Suresh Dhir was successful in getting those bonds transferred in his favour but it did not make any difference at all.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.