Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF BARODA vs SOLID INDIA LTD on 13 May 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.
CONTD. ORDER-SHEET
PAGE NO. .... 05 .....
CASE NO. .... M.A. 25/19 .....
<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="42 69 221 936">DATE</th><th data-bbox="221 69 768 936">DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER</th><th data-bbox="768 69 945 936">REMARK</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="42 69 221 936">13.05.2019</td><td data-bbox="221 69 768 936"><p style="text-align: center;"><i>Ex-08</i></p><p>M.A. No.25/19</p><p>Present : Mr. G.D. Dave, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant<br/>Mr. J.N. Ghadvi, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1<br/>Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank</p><p>I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties. In fact the applicant has filed this M.A. being the 3<sup>rd</sup> party having some interest on the basis of some agreements and further it is the grievance of the applicant that bank in collusion with the borrower appropriated their amount lying in no-lien account. It is further submitted by the applicant that they are in possession of the property. Whereas Ld. Counsel for the bank submitted that one case is pending before the Commercial Court filed by the present applicant against the applicant as well as bank and further objection of applicants are pending before the Ld. Recovery Officer. So this M.A. is not maintainable.</p><p>Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that he intends to adopt the submission made by the respondent bank.</p><p>Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that he has filed this application under section 19(25) of Act 1993 as there is collusion with the bank and borrower appropriated their amount lying in no-lien account and as such this M.A. is well maintainable. He further referred the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Notice of Motion No.2332 of 2007 in Suit No.1627 of 2007 and Notice of Motion No.2983 of 2007 in Suit No.1627 of 2008 in respect of Hill Properties Ltd. Vs Union Bank of India and in Writ Petition NO.1684 of 2006 in respect of Anil Nandkishor Tibrewala & Ors Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Ors. Further he referred the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Writ Petition No.25110 of 2016 in respect of B. Rajarajeshwari Vs The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II and Ors.</p><p>I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. Without going into the merits as in this case objection of applicants are pending before Ld. Recovery Officer and further one matter for recovery is also pending before Commercial Court filed by applicant against borrower and bank and any opinion expressed would prejudice adjudication of said matters. Further, the parties have made some arrangement out of court and applicant deposited certain amount with the bank in no lien account, any observation of this Tribunal in said issue would certainly prejudice pending objections before Ld. Recovery Officer and recovery proceedings pending before Commercial Court. Without commenting on</p></td><td data-bbox="768 69 945 936"></td></tr></tbody></table>
CONTD. ORDER-SHEET
PAGE NO. .... 06 .....
CASE NO. .... M.A. 25119 .....
<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="51 76 221 98">DATE</th><th data-bbox="221 76 768 98">DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER</th><th data-bbox="768 76 946 98">REMARK</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="51 98 221 932"></td><td data-bbox="221 98 768 932"><p>rights of applicant to retain possession on the basis of alleged agreements and without any adjudication on merits regarding amount claimed. I am of the opinion that this M.A. is not maintainable because of pending objections and other litigation, party cannot be allowed to avail many remedies simultaneously for same cause.</p><p>At this stage I must record that judgments cited on behalf of applicant are having different facts and circumstances particularly when the objections are pending before Ld. Recovery Officer and further one matter is pending before Commercial Court.</p><p>This order would not be a clog in the way of applicant to pursue objections before Ld. Recovery Officer and any other efficacious legal remedy in accordance with law.</p><p>Let copies be supplied as per Rules.</p><div data-bbox="538 458 758 505" data-label="Text"><p>(VINAY GOEL)<br/>PRESIDING OFFICER<br/>DRT-I, AHMEDABAD</p></div></td><td data-bbox="768 98 946 932"></td></tr></tbody></table>