Appeal No. 300 of 2016. Case: Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Manju Jain and Ors.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal No. 300 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Prashant Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Bhoumik Nayyar, Advocate |
| Judges | P.K. Bhasin, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Civil |
| Judgement Date | August 29, 2016 |
| Court | Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Order:
P.K. Bhasin, J. (Chairperson)
-
Issue notice to respondents.
Counsel Mr. Bhoumik Nayyar appears for respondents 1 and 2, who has filed caveat also, and accepts notice. Caveat accordingly stands discharged. Mr. Sumeher Bajaj accepts notice on behalf of respondents 6 and 7. As far as other respondents are concerned, Counsel for appellant Bank submits that there is no need of serving them as they are no more participating in the proceedings before the Recovery Officer (R.O.) and the controversy between the Bank and respondents 1 and 2 centres around the action of the R.O. in putting the property of respondents 1 and 2 to auction and they are only fighting the legal battle to protect their property.
Since the point involved is short, with the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the appeal has been finally heard today itself.
-
Respondents 1 and 2 have been claiming before the R.O. that the property No. C-780, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, which was sought to be sold in the recovery proceedings for liquidating the dues of the appellant Bank for which there was a decree passed many years back by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and in respect of which decree, in due course of time, a Recovery Certificate came to be issued by the DRT after coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, belonged to them and could not be put to sale as the same was never mortgaged to secure the loan taken by respondent No. 3 Company from the Bank. The R.O. rejected the objections vide his order dated 13.5.2016. Feeling aggrieved, respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal before DRT-III, Delhi. The learned Presiding Officer of DRT-III, however, without issuing any notice of the appeal to the appellant Bank, decided to set aside the order of the R.O. dismissing the objections in respect of the aforesaid property, vide the impugned order dated 16.8.2016 and passed an order remanding back the matter to the R.O. with the direction to decide the objections afresh and pass a speaking order after examining the evidence in support of objections and keeping in mind the observations made in its order dated 17.6.2016 also. Appellant Bank naturally felt aggrieved with the setting aside of the order which had been passed in its favour by the R.O., by an ex parte order of the learned DRT.
-
Counsel for the appellant submits that the grievance for the present is that the respondents' appeal could not have been allowed without...
To continue reading
Request your trial