R.A. No. 3 of 2002. Case: Chitranjan Katari Vs State Bank of India. Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals
|Case Number:||R.A. No. 3 of 2002|
|Party Name:||Chitranjan Katari Vs State Bank of India|
|Judges:||S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer|
|Issue:||Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 22(2) and 31; Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1947 - Sections 6, 9 and 10; Public Demand Recovery Act|
|Citation:||IV (2004) BC 247|
|Judgement Date:||August 28, 2003|
|Court:||Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals|
S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer
This pertains to an application filed under Section 22(2)(e) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for review of the judgment dated 26.7.2000 passed by learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Patna in Execution Case No. 36 of 1988 (PT). The petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay. The review application was numbered as RA 6 of 2000 in DRT, Patna and with the establishment of DRT, Ranchi for the State of Jharkhand, the same was received on transfer in this Tribunal and was renumbered as RA No. 3/2002.
I have heard the arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the records including the written synopsis filed by both the parties.
Although, there was an objection on the ground of limitation, the same was not stressed during the arguments. In the facts of the case, it is only fair to condone the delay, so as to enable adjudication of the present review application on merit.
The contention of the petitioner precisely is that the objection filed by opposite party No. 3 under Section 9 of PDR Act has not been heard and has never been determined under Section 10 of the PDR Act. Accordingly, it is prayed to review the impugned Order dated 26.7.2000. The second ground taken by the petitioner is that on transfer of records to DRT, Patna, the case should have been registered under the heading of PT Case instead of execution case.
Admittedly, State Bank of India had filed the requisition for Certificate under Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery, 1947 (hereinafter after as PDR Act) before the Certificate Officer, Ranchi vide Certificate Case No. 47 M 1982-83 for recovery of total sum of Rs. 17,02,594.19 p. The Certificate Officer issued a Certificate for the said amount on 2.11.1982. The defendants have contended that after receiving notice issued under Section 7 of the PDR Act, they have filed petition denying their liability. It is their case that their objection filed under Section 9 of the PDR Act was not heard and was never determined under Section 10 of the PDR, Act. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the certificate issued by the Certificate Officer has not yet been cancelled. Subsequent to issuance of certificate, there was attachment of house property of the borrower and there was also sale of property of the borrower. At page 11 of the written synopsis, it has been contended by the defendants that as per the Hon'ble High...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL