RAMESH CHAND Vs. GLOBAL TRUST BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in IA-212/2001 in OA-1481/1998 dated 25.6.2001. THE respondent Bank filed this IA seeking permission to sell the property situated at 307, P.H. Road, by private sale and deposit the sale proceeds to the account of the Bank. THE 2nd defendant has no objection. THE 5th defendant has also given consent subject to the condition mentioned in their compromise letter dated 21.6.2001, THE learned Presiding Officer allowed the IA granting permission of the interim sale of the property at 307, PH Road, which are mortgaged with the Bank over which defendant No. 5 is also having a charge. THE learned Presiding Officer has further ordered that the sale shall be conducted by inviting tenders and the sale proceeds shall be appropriated by the Bank only after the sale is confirmed by the Court and subject to the appropriate conditions which may be imposed by the Court in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Dena Bank case. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants were set ex parte and they filed petition to set aside the ex parte Order and that is still pending and while the main OA itself is pending before the DRT-I, Chennai, and before decree is passed in that, the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, ordering interim sale of the mortgaged property is not proper. He further submitted that he was also not given any notice in the petition for interim sale of the property and even though he was present in the Court at that time and was prepared to argue, he was not heard and without notice being given to him and also without giving any opportunity to the appellant to contest that petition the Presiding Officer has passed the order and the appellant has been denied his opportunity to put forth his case and it is against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THE significant factor is that the main OA itself is pending before the DRT-I, Chennai. It is seen from the submission made by the appellants' Counsel that petition to set aside the ex parte order is pending before the DRT-I, THE learned Presiding Officer has also stated in his order that a perusal of the petition IA-855/01 filed by D1, D3 and D4 shows that they have sought relief for setting aside of the ex parte order and unless and until the ex parte order is set aside, the defendants have no locus standi to oppose the application for interim sale and so their objections are rejected and however they are at liberty to file necessary application in that respect. So, even his order reveals that at the time when he passed the order, the petition to set aside the ex parte order was pending before that Court.