Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SUSHMA MASIH vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 15 July 2021
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR ADDL. CHARGE LUCKNOW Shri. A.H.Khan, Presiding Oflicer Order Dated 15-7-2021 M.A. No.10 of2021 Shushma Masih Applicant Versus Punjab National Bank & another Respondent 1'Theapplicanthaspreferredthismisc.applicationforextensionof time to deposit the amount in pursuance of the order dt' 10'1'2020 passed in S.A. No. 503 of 2019'
2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed S'A' No' 503 of 2019 against the action taken by the respondent bank r'r/s 14 of the Act,2002 whereby the respondent o'2 had directed to take physical possession of the secured asset' At the time of hearing this Tribunal vide order dt. 10.1.2020 had directed the applicant to deposit Rs' 31.00 lacs in installment before 30.9.2020. After passing of the said order the applicant sold his one property, but the sale deed could not be executed due to Covid-l9 and his brother had expired' therefore the applicant could not comply with the order dt' 10'1'2020 and sought time extension.
3. Heard the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record. The counsel for the bank argued that the misc' application is liable to be rejected on the ground that applicant had failed to comply with the order passed by this Tribunal and in the mean time the auction purchaser had deposited the entire sale amount. I have also gone through the order dt. 10.1.2020 the said order was passed on the consent of the applicant to deposit Rs' 3 1.00 lacs against the dues of the bank a sum of Rs' 34.50 lacs' The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 2.00 lacs as initial amount by 31.1.2020 and was also directed to deposit minimum Rs. 4.00 lacs every month' The applicant had not only defaulted in repayment of entire amount, but had also failed to deposit the initial amount' The present time extension application was filed on 12.2.2021 after expiry of 3O.g.IO2O.In the mean time bank had received the sale proceed from the auction purchaser, tlerefore, I do not find any merit to allow time extension to the applicant. Thus the prayer of the applicant for time extension is declined. In the result, the misc. application for time extension is rejected' Let the file be consigrred to record. (a.H.Khan) Presiding Officer Having Addl. Charge