Review Application No. 7 of 2005. Case: Shardaprasad and Ors. Vs State Bank of India and Ors.. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberReview Application No. 7 of 2005
CounselFor Appellant: B.J. Agrawal, Adv. and For Respondents: Anil Kumar, Adv. for Respondent No. 1
JudgesK.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
IssueRecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 19(25) and 31A; Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 - Rule 7
CitationI (2006) BC 38
Judgement DateSeptember 02, 2005
CourtNagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals


K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer

  1. This application, though registered as review application, is one under Section 19(25) of RDDB Act.

  2. At few facts necessary for understanding the controversy in the matter are that the Bank had filed Spl. Civil Suit 76/94 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Pusad against the other respondents herein who were defendants in the suit. By judgment dated 1.11.1995, the learned Civil Judge allowed the suit for Rs. 54,59,045/- with interest @ 17.25% p.a. The sale of attached movable property is also ordered. Consequently, the Bank had filed M. A. 141 /2003 under Section 31-A of RDDB Act for issuance of recovery certificate. By order dated 14th November, 2003 my learned predecessor was pleased to issue the recovery certificate for the monetary claim. He also pleased to give following direction:

    The applicant Bank is at liberty to take necessary steps to sell the other mortgaged properties of the defendants and adjust the sale proceeds thereof towards the loan account of defendants.

  3. The applicants contention herein is that the above direction was beyond the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. The Civil Court had not given declaration that any property was mortgaged. In any case, the Tribunal could not have left for the Bank or the Recovery Officer the question as to whether the particular property was mortgaged or not. The recovery certificate to that extent of above direction, therefore, is illegal which is why rectification in the same is sought for, say the applicants.

  4. The respondent No. 1 Bank in reply Ex. 4 has at the outset contended that the applicants are strangers to the recovery proceeding and as such have no locus to file this application. The necessary fee for review is also said to have not been given. The Bank contends that the applicants are purchasers of the mortgaged property. They did not take search before purchasing the same. The applicants have already filed objection before the learned Recovery Officer in respect of the property. The application, thus is said to be liable to be dismissed.

  5. I have heard arguments of learned Counsel representing the parties. I have also gone through the xerox copies of relevant documents.

  6. At the outset, the question raised by the Bank about locus of the applicant is taken up. Admittedly the applicants are not parties to the recovery certificate. Ordinarily, therefore, any modification or rectification in 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