Appeal No. R-71 of 2012. Case: Shalini Asha Chopra & Ors. Vs State Bank of India & Anr.. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberAppeal No. R-71 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Kaushal Kant, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. O.P. Mishra, Advocate
JudgesR.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson)
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rules 16, 6; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 146; Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 20; Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 2, 4, 5
CitationI (2013) BC 18
Judgement DateMay 11, 2012
CourtAllahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Judgment:

R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson)

  1. They are heard. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 challenging the order passed by the DRT on 2nd April, 2012. By this order, the objection, which was raised by the appellants against the application for substitution of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been rejected. The relevant facts for the adjudication of the present Appeal are that the State Bank of India initially filed a Civil Suit for recovery of its dues, subsequently, the said Suit was transferred to the DRT and the same was allowed by an order dated 12th May, 2006 and, accordingly, the Recovery Certificate was issued for a sum of Rs. 1,41,74,528.37 together with cost and pendente lite and future interest @ 16.5% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the Suit i.e. 30th April, 1993 till full realization. The liability was joint and several. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the guarantors and the appellant No. 3 is the principal borrower.

  2. This is to be seen that earlier Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was impleaded by an order dated 13 th March, 2007 and the said order was challenged before this Tribunal in an Appeal on the ground that the order of substitution has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, thereafter, the case was remanded back to the Tribunal for passing afresh order after hearing the parties. Now the Tribunal has passed afresh order.

  3. The Deed of Assignment was entered into between the State Bank of India and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The same was entered into on 29th March, 2006 which is placed on record. After when the said Deed of Assignment was entered into, an application on behalf of the present appellants was moved that the debt has been assigned by the State Bank of India to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., therefore, the State Bank of India has no right to prosecute the Civil Suit/Original Application, On the date, when the said application was decided by the Tribunal by its order dated 10th May, 2006 on that date Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was neither a party nor it was noticed. State Bank of India insisted that they have every right to prosecute the appellants for recovery of their debt. Thereafter, the Recovery Certificate was passed against the appellants on 12th May, 2006. After passing of the Recovery Certificate, the same was put to execution by the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal. Before the Recovery Officer, the State Bank of India insisted to recover the amount, but an application was moved by the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for substitution in place of the State Bank of India, as certificate holder and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. claimed that under the Deed of Assignment they have right to execute the Recovery Certificate.

  4. It was objected by the appellants on the ground that earlier when the application was moved by them that the State Bank of India has no right to execute the Recovery Certificate and only Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has right to execute...

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