E SATHEESH KUMAR Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1 The appellant is the additional defendant impleaded as 4th defendant in the Original Application (OA). Defendants 1 to 3 filed IA-226/2002 before the DRT, Coimbatore, for appointment of Receiver to take possession of the mortgaged property and it was allowed by the Tribunal by Order dated 21.7.2003. Aggrieved against that Order the 4th defendant appellant has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant at the outset pointed out that the appointment of Receiver has been made by the PO, DRT, Coimbatore on the petition filed by the borrowers defendants 1 to 3 and the petition itself is not maintainable and all the petitions with regard to recovery of the amount must be filed only by the Bank. He drew my attention to the provisions of the RDDB and FI Act, 1993 under Section 17 and Section 19(1) and (2) of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 19(1) of the Act reads as follows-- "Where a Bank or financial institution has to recovery any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more them one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."