Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 664 (JHR)

Anand Enterprise v. UCO Bank

2015-05-21

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : I.A. No. 3049 of 2015 This application has been filed seeking modification in the prayer made in the writ petition as well as for deletion of the name of petitioner no. 2 from the array of the parties as, she died on 10.06.2014. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 12.07.2013 in Appeal (T) No. 08/2013 (in Appeal No. 132 of 2011). It is submitted that the petitioners are seeking setting aside of order dated 12.07.2013 however, inadvertently, the original prayer in the writ petition was not formulated properly. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent UCO Bank opposes the amendment application. 4. Aggrieved by order dated 12.07.2013, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. The averment made in the writ petition discloses that the petitioners are aggrieved by a direction issued by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/ 5. Considering the above facts, the application seeking modification in the writ petition as well as for deletion of the name of petitioner no. 2 is allowed. W.P.(C) No. 5395 of 2013 The petitioner M/s Anand Enterprise is a partnership firm of which the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are partners. The respondent UCO Bank sanctioned cash credit for Rs. 20,00,000/ and term loan for Rs. 5,00,000/ - to the petitioner no. 1. The loan account was declared Nonperforming Asset (NPA) and subsequently, steps under SARFAESI Act, 2002 were taken against the petitioners. The respondent Bank field O.A. No. 10/2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi to realise Rs. 21,95,613.50/ as on 19.06.2006. However, O.A. No. 10/2008 proceeded exparte. Vide, order dated 13.02.2009 the said application was finally allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed M.A. Case No. 26 of 2009 for settingaside exparte decree dated 13.02.2009. The said application has been dismissed vide, order dated 12.05.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred Appeal No. 132 of 2011. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once Appeal No. 132 of 2011 was entertained and it stood allowed vide, order dated 12.07.2013 the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal could not have put condition for payment of Rs. 7,00,000/ to the respondent Bank. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent UCO Bank submits that the petitioners who were extended loan, defaulted in making payment. 7,00,000/ to the respondent Bank. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent UCO Bank submits that the petitioners who were extended loan, defaulted in making payment. O.A. No. 10/ 2008 was set for exparte hearing because the petitioners, after appearing before the Debts Recovery Tribunal neglected in pursuing the matter. The loan advanced to the petitioners is public money and the respondent Bank is under a statutory duty to take steps for recovery of the same. Supporting the impugned order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the said order is just, fair and equitable and it does not warrant interference by this Court. 4. Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Section 21 mandates that the appellant to whom the amount of debt is due to bank or financial institution should make deposit of 75 % of the said amount. However, before the Appeal under Section 20 can be entertained, the said amount can be waived or varied by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 5. A perusal of order dated 12.07.2013 discloses that the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been allowed. O.A. No. 10/2008 has been restored to its original file and the petitioners have been permitted to participate in the proceeding. A further direction has been issued that the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall accept the written statement of the petitioners who are opposite parties before the Tribunal. It is apparent that appeal preferred by the petitioners stood allowed by order dated 12.07.2013. After accepting the appeal and restoring O.A. No. 10/ 2008 to its original file, a direction to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/ with the respondent Bank could not have been issued by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. O.A. No. 10/2008 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,95,613/is yet to be adjudicated, after providing opportunity to the petitioners to put their defence. 6. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that order dated 12.07.2013 requires interference in so far as, direction to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/ with the respondent Bank issued by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent that the petitioners are not required to deposit sum of Rs. 6. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that order dated 12.07.2013 requires interference in so far as, direction to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/ with the respondent Bank issued by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent that the petitioners are not required to deposit sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- with the respondent Bank as ordered vide, order dated 12.07.2013 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.