DHARMENDRA NARANBHAI AGRAWAL vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 19 November 2019

CONTD. ORDER-SHEET

PAGE NO. .... 08 .....

CASE NO. Appeal-02/19

<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="54 76 225 98">DATE</th><th data-bbox="225 76 771 98">DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER</th><th data-bbox="771 76 947 98">REMARK</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="54 103 225 944">19.11.2019<br/><br/>Present :</td><td data-bbox="225 103 771 944"><p style="text-align: center;"><u>Exh-08</u></p><p style="text-align: right;">APPEAL 2/19</p><p>Shri H.N. Dave Ld. counsel for Applicant</p><p>Shri H.M. Shroff Ld. counsel for Respondent bank.</p><p>Counsel for the bank submitted that earlier objections were dismissed for the want of prosecution and before auction present appellant appeared before Ld. Recovery Officer and insisted his objections which had already been dismissed for the want of prosecution.</p><p>So now Appellant has no right to press the objections which were already disposed off being not pressed.</p><p>Whereas counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no adjudication on merits and even Appellants filed fresh objections are proclamation of sale.</p><p>I have considered the rival submissions. It is an admitted case that after matter found undated on 23.01.19. Case was taken up by Ld. Recovery Officer and fixed for 1.2.19.</p><p>On 1.2.19 none appeared on behalf of third party objector and accordingly the objections were dismissed and ignored by Ld Recovery Officer by recording about intentions of third party to delay the proceedings.</p><p>Although in the order dated 23.1.19 there is reference regarding direction to TPO to supply copy of objections and with direction to bank to file reply on next date of hearing and further Ld. recovery officer recorded that if TPO will not appear on next date to press his application, the objections would be decided on merits.</p><p>This Tribunal put specific query to Ld. counsel for parties appearing before this Tribunal whether any notice or intimation of undated matter was ever served upon counsel for third party objector for 23.1.19 or 1.2.19.</p><p>Ld. counsel for bank submitted that to his knowledge no such intimation was ever</p></td><td data-bbox="771 103 947 944"></td></tr></tbody></table>

CONTD. ORDER-SHEET

PAGE NO. .... 09 .....

CASE NO. ... Appeal-02/19 .....

<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="46 70 221 943">DATE</th><th data-bbox="221 70 768 943">DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER</th><th data-bbox="768 70 943 943">REMARK</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><p>given.</p><p>I have considered the submissions and I am of the opinion that admittedly in this case, third party objector is claiming its rights over property being purchaser and bank is claiming its right over the property as personal property of certificate debtor and further claimed that said property is lying attached for recovery of amount due under recovery certificate issued by this Tribunal. Without going in to the merits of their rival contentions and for expeditious recovery of public money I feel fair to direct Ld. recovery officer to decide the objections of Third party objector within one month in accordance with law on merits as pending on 23.01.19. The parties are directed to appear before Ld. Recovery Officer 11.12.19 i.e. date of hearing for further proceedings already fixed before Ld. Recovery Officer. Appeal is accordingly disposed off and it is made clear that Ld. Recovery Officer will decide the objections without being prejudiced by any observations made in this order.</p><p>(VINAY GOEL)<br/>PRESIDING OFFICER<br/>DRT-I, AHMEDABAD</p></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>