SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall decide the above said two appeals which arise out of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT -III, Delhi dated 26.6.2009. In the case title as SBI v. Rinku Handicrafts and Ors., the learned CMM vide his order dated 11.5.2009 appointed a Receiver to take possession of the mortgaged property bearing No. 602/27, Gali No. 27, Block A -2, Khasra 154, South Gamari, Delhi 110053 from the possession of Mr. Chandrashekhar, who is the proprietor of M/s. Rinku Handicrafts; judgment debtor Mr. Anjani Kumar, author of security interest in the above described asset served notice dated 10.6.2006 upon the borrowers requiring their cooperation for obtaining the possession on 29.6.2009 at about 12 a.m. The Bank has already recovered a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/ - which amount is said to be higher than the notice amount.

(2.) BOTH the petitioners, Mr. Satish Kumar Singh and Mr. Yogesh Kumar claimed to be the buyers of the property from one Smt. Babli Devi on 1.8.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/ -. Notices of demand were issued upon the two borrowers on 1.2.2007 for an amount of Rs. 1,84,000/ -. The learned Presiding Officer DRT did not recognize Smt. Babli Devi and did not clap any significance with the agreement to sell in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of the Property Act. It was held that the petitioners are "absolutely outsiders, the strangers in the Bank's secured asset". They were directed by the Court to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -each with the Bank. It was held that the appellants had no case. It was ordered that after receipt of Rs 1 lakh from these petitioners, the Bank will issue "No Due Certificate" in respect of the concerned account which has been internally classified as NPA on 1.10.2004 for an amount of Rs. 1,53,033.84 and the original title deeds were ordered to be delivered to the mortgagor -borrower after obtaining the certificate of acknowledgement from such borrower within a period of 48 hours from all the payments.

(3.) I have heard the Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the appellants are neither the borrowers nor the mortgagors nor the guarantors. It was argued that it is difficult to fathom as to why they have been asked to pay the abovesaid amount. It was also explained that even the Bank Manager is not interested and, therefore, he has not attended the Court. The learned Counsel pointed out that the penalty imposed by the learned DRT is on the higher side.