Misc. Appeal No. 158 of 2012. Case: Ajay Goyal & Ors. Vs Bank of India & Ors.. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Misc. Appeal No. 158 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Kashyap, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 |
| Judges | S.N.H. Zaidi, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 18(1) |
| Judgement Date | April 27, 2012 |
| Court | Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
S.N.H. Zaidi, J. (Chairperson)
-
Since Mr. Singh has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. caveat is discharged. Heard parties' Counsel on admission. The appellants are aggrieved with the order dated 19.4.2012 of the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Delhi, whereby the application (I.A. 522/2011) filed by the respondent No. 2 for the return of original title deeds deposited in O.A. No. 85/99 before the Tribunal below was allowed.
-
Mr. Kashyap points out that the assignment of debt and liabilities by respondent No. 1 qua the secured assets to respondent No. 2 was challenged when the application for substitution of respondent No. 2 was considered by the Tribunal below and by order dated 4.9.2008, it was ordered that the question of the legality of assignment would be considered when the O.A. would be finally heard. Mr. Kashyap further points out that though the property of the appellant was mortgaged as security with respondent No. 1, but it was not transferred to the assignee company as it was not mentioned in Schedule 'D' of the deed of assignment dated 26.6.2008. He further points out that subsequently another deed of assignment was executed, which had the mention of appellant's property. According to Mr. Kashyap since the legality of the assignment and the mortgage is to be decided by the Tribunal below, therefore, the title deeds, more specifically the title deed of the appellants, should not have been ordered to be returned to the assignee company.
-
Mr. Singh, on the other hand, submits that though the assignment deed dated 26.6.2008 was executed in respect of the properties of District Gautam Budh Nagar and District Ghaziabad, but inadvertently the property of the appellant, which is situated at Hapur of District Ghaziabad, had been omitted to be mentioned in Schedule 'D' of the assignment deed. He also points out that in S.A. No. 43/2008 filed by the appellant the learned DRT in its order dated 8.10.2010 had observed that the registration of the deed of assignment at Gautam Budh Nagar in respect of a property of Hapur is an irregularity, which can be rectified by the assignee by getting it registered in the District having jurisdiction. Mr. Singh points out that, accordingly, the assignee company got another assignment deed registered at Hapur, in respect of the property of the appellant. He further points out that the said assignment deed was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition before the Hon'ble...
To continue reading
Request your trial