M.A. No. 56 of 2002. Case: Patwari Motors Stores and Ors. Vs Central Bank of India and Anr.. Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals
| Case Number | M.A. No. 56 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Binita Singh and A.K. Jha, Advs. and For Respondents: Abhay Kumar Sinha, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1 |
| Judges | S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer |
| Issue | Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 22(2) |
| Citation | IV (2004) BC 148 |
| Judgement Date | June 30, 2003 |
| Court | Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals |
Order:
S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer
-
This pertains to the Miscellaneous Application No. 56/2002 filed on 7.10.2002 under Section 22(2)(h) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for refund order in terms of judgment dated 23.2.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Chairperson of DRAT in Appeal No. 22/2000.
-
Heard the parties and perused the application, reply and written arguments of parties.
-
It is precisely, the case of the applicant that Hon'ble DRAT while setting aside ex parte order dated 16.6.1999 has specifically directed on 23.2.2001 that all subsequent steps in the matter of execution of certificate stand set aside. In the light of observation of Hon'ble DRAT that "any sum lying with DRT in the process of Recovery shall also go back", Recovery Officer had directed on 16.4.2001 to inform the Bank for compliance of the said order. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the Bank on 10.5.2001 for refund of the amount. The applicant contends that since there was no refund by the Bank, the instant application was filed for direction for refund in compliance with the Hon'ble DRAT order.
-
Bank has controverted the contention of the applicant mainly on three grounds. Firstly it has been contended that refund, if any, is barred by limitation. Second contention is that there has been no direction of Hon'ble DRAT on Bank for refund of any amount. The third objection raised is that in view of consent status quo order dated 15.3.2002 of learned DRT, Patna refund of any amount does not arise.
-
In order to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective the relevant developments of the case, date wise, is furnished below:
16.6.1999 - Ex parte order by learned DRT, Patna.
21.6.1999 - Certificate issued-RP No. 70/99 followed.
4.10.1999 - Attachment of balance amount of different accounts of Judgment Debtors.
20.7.2002 - Direction by Recover Officer to release balance amount lying in different accounts in favour of Recovery Officer of DRT, Patna.
3.8.2000 - 21 Drafts deposited in DRT.
7.8.2000 - Drafts amounting to Rs. 1, 46, 531.59 paise released to Certificate Holder Bank.
29.8.2000 - Stay of Recovery Proceeding by the Hon'ble DRAT.
23.2.2001- Set aside order of Hon'ble DRAT.
16.4.2001 - Recovery Officer directed to inform the Bank for compliance of Hon'ble DRAT order dated 23.2.2001.
9.7.2001 - Ex parte order by the.learned DRT, Patna.
23.7.2001 - Certificate issued-RP No. 97/2002 follows.
15.3.2001 - Set aside of ex parte order dated 9.7.2001 with an order to Recovery Officer to maintain status quoand not to proceed further.
-
Bank's first objection is that the claim for refund of amount, if any, pursuant to order of Hon'ble DRAT is barred by Limitation. From the aforesaid fact, it is seen that Hon'ble DRAT...
To continue reading
Request your trial