Appeal No. R-09 of 2012. Case: Ashish Srivastava Vs State Bank of India & Ors.. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal No. R-09 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sahai, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Kush Saxena and Mr. Amit Negi, Advocates |
| Judges | R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 19, 19(2), 20 |
| Citation | I (2013) BC 70 |
| Judgement Date | April 13, 2012 |
| Court | Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson)
-
They are heard. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow on 15th December, 2011. By this order, the recall application filed by the appellant to the order dated 3rd November, 2010 has been rejected. The relevant facts for adjudication of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993. After filing the Original Application, an application was moved by the respondent No. 1 Bank to implead the present appellant as one of the respondents. The said application was moved by the Tribunal without issuing any notice to the proposed respondent and on interim order was also granted by the Tribunal that the premises bearing Plot No. 25, Block No. 6, Ranighat, Kanpur shall not be sold to any person by the present appellant. After when the said order was passed by the Tribunal dated 3rd November, 2010, the appellant filed an application for recall of the Order dated 3rd November, 2010 on the ground that he has been impleaded as respondent/ defendant in the Original Application Without any notice and the order of injunction has also been passed against him. For this reason, an application was filed by the present appellant for recall of the order dated 3rd November, 2010 which was rejected by the Tribunal by an order dated 15th December, 2011 and therefore, the present Appeal has been preferred.
-
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there has been no transaction with the Bank by the present appellant by which respondent No. 1 Bank has extended any facility to him, therefore, it is submitted that no debt due is recoverable from the present appellant by the Bank so that the appellant either may be necessary or proper party in the Suit for recovery of the debt filed by the Bank under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.
-
On behalf of the respondent Bank, it was submitted that there was facility granted by way of overdraft to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have fraudulently withdrawn the amount from the Bank and the said amount has been paid to the present appellant for purchase of the property. The property was purchased out of the amount which was fraudulently withdrawn by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
-
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that there had been transfer of the property by sale, but it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial