Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
INDIAN BANK vs BANK OF BARODA on 5 April 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Page No.
KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2
ORDER SHEET
(Continuation)
Case No. \_\_\_\_\_
Vs
<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="108 231 179 291">Date of Order</th><th data-bbox="183 231 765 291">Order with Signature</th><th data-bbox="769 231 894 291">Office action with date and dated Signature of parties when necessary</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><p>Order No. 10 Dated 05.4.2019<br/>I.A. 256 of 2017<br/>in<br/>A.P.P. 03 of 2014<br/>Allahabad Bank -vs- Bank of Baroda</p><p>Present:</p><p>Mr. Bimal Chandra Saha, Learned Counsel<br/>for the Appellant/Allahabad Bank</p><p>Mt. M. Roy Chowdhury, Learned Counsel<br/>for Respondent/Bank of Baroda</p><p>Mr. K.K. Ganguly, Learned Counsel for 3<sup>rd</sup><br/>Party/Intervenor</p><p>The present I.A., being I.A. 256 of 2017,<br/>has been filed by third party intervenor, Sri<br/>Somnath Banerjee, praying for adding him as a<br/>party in the appeal.</p><p>The third party intervenor, Sri Somnath<br/>Banerjee, states that he is the absolute owner of<br/>the flat at Ground Floor having an area of 800<br/>sq.ft. in three storied building at the premises<br/>No. 38A/4, Jyotish Roy Road, New Alipore, P.S.<br/>Behala, Kolkata - 700 053 and that the said<br/>property has been mortgaged by someone,<br/>whom he does not know, with Bank of Baroda,<br/>the Respondent in the Appeal, and that the<br/>Applicant/Allahabad Bank had sold his schedule<br/>property mortgaged with it to recover the</p><p style="text-align: right;"></p></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
Page No. \_\_\_\_\_
**KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2** **ORDER SHEET** **(Continuation)**
Vs \_\_\_\_\_
<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th data-bbox="108 228 183 291">Date of Order</th> <th data-bbox="183 228 768 291">Order with Signature</th> <th data-bbox="768 228 893 291">Office action with date and dated Signature of parties when necessary</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="108 291 183 924"></td> <td data-bbox="183 291 768 924"> <p>outstanding loan amount standing in his name. That the Respondent Bank of Baroda has initiated action claiming the excess amount left with Allahabad Bank after realizing the said outstanding from the sale proceeds. However, the Intervenor further submits that his petition before the Learned Recovery Officer against his order directing Allahabad Bank not to refund the excess amount to the Intervenor, the Learned Recovery Officer rejected the application of the Allahabad Bank for which the instant Appeal has been filed by the Allahabad Bank where the petitioner is not added as a party.</p> <p>That the petitioner/Intervenor filed an application on 23<sup>rd</sup> July, 2015 before this Tribunal with a prayer to add the present petitioner as a necessary party to the said Appeal No. 3 of 2016, Case No. T.C. 43 of 2009 in relation to O.A. 81 of 2006 and the same is still pending adjudication.</p> <p>Respondent/Bank of Baroda filed opposition to the I.A. on 23<sup>rd</sup> November, 2017.</p> <p>Learned Counsel for Appellant does not oppose to such addition.</p> <p>Learned Counsel for Respondent/Bank of Baroda vehemently opposed in allowing the</p> </td>
</tr> </tbody> </table>
Page No.
KOLKATA DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2
ORDER SHEET
(Continuation)
Case No. \_\_\_\_\_
Vs \_\_\_\_\_
<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th data-bbox="101 224 178 291">Date of Order</th> <th data-bbox="178 224 761 291">Order with Signature</th> <th data-bbox="761 224 889 291">Office action with date and dated Signature of parties when necessary</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="101 291 178 926"></td> <td data-bbox="178 291 761 926"> <p>intervenor to be added as party to the instant proceedings.</p> <p>This Tribunal is of the opinion that the I.A. filed by the third party intervenor, Sri Somnath Banerjee, who claims to be the absolute owner of the immovable property, as detailed above, may be allowed to be added as party to the instant appeal, being Appeal No. 03 of 2016, (arising out of R.C. No. 43 of 2009 in O.A. 81 of 2006) as a necessary party to the instant proceedings as otherwise the petitioner's right and interest on the schedule property will be jeopardized.</p> <p>Accordingly, the present I.A., being I.A. 256 of 2017, is allowed.</p> <p>Third party intervenor, Sri Somnath Banerjee, be added as party in the appeal.</p> <p>Let amendment be carried out before Learned Registrar.</p> <p>List before Learned Registrar on 24<sup>th</sup> April, 2019 for compliance.</p> <p>Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's Website.</p> <div style="text-align: right; margin-top: 20px;"> <br/> (M. S. RAO)<br/> Presiding Officer<br/> DRT-2, Kolkata </div> </td>
</tr> </tbody> </table>
14/ac