Appeal No. R-198 of 2012. Case: Housing and Urban Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Central Govt. Employees Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberAppeal No. R-198 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Wazid Hyder, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Atul Nema, Advocate
JudgesR.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson)
IssueRecovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 19, 20
CitationIV (2013) BC 122, 2013 (121) RD 507
Judgement DateJuly 17, 2013
CourtAllahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Judgment:

R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson)

  1. On behalf of the respondent-Society the reply is filed which is taken on record and is considered. For the reason stated in the application the order to proceed ex parte is set aside and the matter is heard finally. The present Appeal is preferred under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on 26th October, 2012 in O.A. No. 77/2001. By this order the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application preferred by the appellant-Bank under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.

  2. The relevant facts for the adjudication of the present case are that the respondent-Society was granted loan facility by the appellant-Bank. The loan was for the development of the land belonging to the Society. The respondent is a housing society. After when the loan was granted by the appellant-Bank to the respondent Society, then the land was developed and ultimately the developed land was allotted to the members of the respondent-Society for construction of the residential houses. The residential houses were constructed.

  3. The loan was not repaid by the respondent-Society, therefore, the appellant-Bank filed an Original Application before the Tribunal for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,33,90,930.93 together with interest. Earlier the claim was filed for a lesser amount, subsequently, the claim was amended by moving an appropriate application by the appellant-Bank, which was allowed by the Tribunal.

  4. The Tribunal was of the view that since it was a composite loan, therefore, the defaulter members are responsible along with the Society to repay the same to the appellant-Bank.

  5. Tribunal further relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which is reported in AIR 2009 Guj. 43, Devavrat Shivaprasad Bhatt v. Housing Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO). The Tribunal was also of the view that since the recoveries from the defaulter members are also persuaded through Tehsildar even during the pendency of the Original Application, therefore, simultaneously, two parallel proceedings to recover the dues under the RDDBFI Act, 1993 is not maintainable.

  6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank at the first instance submitted that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the appellant-Bank is also proceeding against the defaulter members by persuading the claim through the Tehsildar to recover the amount was not a case of either party. He submitted that even the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT