Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SUNIL RAJANI vs BANK OF INDIA on 3 March 2020
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.....
CASE No.....
<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="40 112 135 155">DATE</th><th data-bbox="135 112 665 155">DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER</th><th data-bbox="665 112 880 155">REMARK</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="40 155 135 902">MA 98/19 &<br/>MA 150/19 &<br/>MA 152/19<br/>03-03-20</td><td data-bbox="135 155 665 902">Pr: Shri Shivendra Pandey, Adv. for the applicant.<br/>Shri P. Chaturvedi, Adv. for Res. No.1 Bank<br/>Shri Akshat Agrawal, Adv. for Res. No.2<br/><br/>1. Vide order dtd.19-07-19 passed in SA 291/18 and vide order dtd.19-07-19 passed in SA 292/18, filed by the borrower, this Tribunal had set aside the auction notice dtd.20-05-18 and all subsequent proceedings. The borrower had expressed his willingness to clear the entire dues and in compliance of order passed by this Tribunal in both the SAs, deposited a total amount of Rs.37,20,232/-.<br/><br/>2. Prior to passing of this order the bank had already sold the property, received the entire sale consideration (Rs.48.48 Lacs) and had issued the sale certificates on 02-08-18 to the auction purchaser.<br/><br/>3. The bank has thus received amount from the auction purchaser as well as from the borrower totaling about Rs.85,68,232/-.<br/><br/>4. It is contended that the borrower and the auction purchaser have entered into an agreement and it is prayed that the sale certificate be allowed to remain intact and order regarding quashing of the same be recalled.<br/><br/>5. Duly considered submissions. The Compromise agreements both dated 15.01.2020 have been placed by the parties which is on record. The borrower as well as the auction purchaser, who are also present in person, pray for return of excess money to the borrower and also pray that the sale certificates both dtd.02-08-18, be held to be valid and also submit that the challenge to the validity of the sale certificate is being withdrawn by the borrower.<br/><br/>6. In these circumstances, when the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and also with a view to put the matter to rest, I am inclined to recall and nullify the orders dtd.19.07.2019 passed in respective</td><td data-bbox="665 155 880 902"></td></tr></tbody></table>
CONTD. ORDER-SHEET
PAGE No. ....
CASE No. ....
<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th data-bbox="142 129 235 151">DATE</th> <th data-bbox="235 129 765 151">DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER</th> <th data-bbox="765 129 982 151">REMARK</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="142 151 235 896"></td> <td data-bbox="235 151 765 896"> <p>SAs and hereby direct that the parties shall strictly abide by the terms of Compromise Agreements both dated 15.01.2020 and the bank is directed to refund the excess amount to the borrowers i.e. Rs.16,55,923/-, Rs.20,64,309/- and FDR's of Rs.5,53,001.09 & Rs.7,42,051.64 within 03 days.</p> <p>7. With these directions, all the three MAs i.e. MA 98/19, MA 150/19 and MA 152/19 stands finally disposed of. Copy of this order be placed in the file of SA 291/18 and 292/18.</p> <p>Record be consigned to record room.</p> <p style="text-align: center;"> <br/> (Brajesh K. Sinha)<br/> Presiding Officer </p> </td> <td data-bbox="765 151 982 896"> <p style="text-align: right;"> <br/> 3-3-2020<br/> Ram Prasad Sahu </p> <p style="text-align: right;"> <br/> 3-3-2020<br/> SUNIL RAMANI </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>