Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR vs P. RADHAKRISHNAN on 16 May 2023
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT COIMBATORE**
DATED THIS 16<sup>th</sup> DAY OF MAY, 2023
**PRESENT: SHRI. M.P. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., B.L., PRESIDING OFFICER**
**MA No.357/2018
in
TA 1431 of 2002**
Between
Mr. P. Radhakrishnan
S/o. Mr. A.P. Nair,
Sole Proprietor – M/s.Sudarsan Steel Complex, Jawans Bhavan, T.B.Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
--- Petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant
And
M/s. State Bank of India,
(Formerly M/s. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur)
City Branch,
Oppanakara Street,
Coimbatore.
--- Respondent/Applicant Bank
Appearance of Advocates:-
<table border="0">
<tr>
<td>Advocate for the Petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>Mr. K.R.Shankaran</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Advocate for the Respondent/Applicant Bank</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>Mr. K.Sethuram</td>
</tr>
</table>
This Miscellaneous Application having been heard on 08.02.2023 in the presence of Advocate Mr.K.R.Shankaran for the Petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and Advocate Mr.K.Sethuram for Respondent/Applicant Bank and the Tribunal delivered the following:
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.
**ORDER**
1. The Application having filed by the Petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant seeking the release of the Original Sale Deed dated 06.02.1982 and Registered as Document No.3882/1982 to the petitioner or to the Respondent Bank as may be decided by this Tribunal.
2MA No.357/2018 in TA 1431/2002
2. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant that the Respondent Bank having filed the OA and having passed the Final Order by its order dated 13.11.2006 and having issued the DRC No.30/2007 dated 30.05.2007 and the Ld. Recovery Officer having sold the property on 28.01.2009 to an extent of 24.95 cents out of the total extent of 2.00 acres of the land mortgaged by the Petitioner with the Respondent Bank, the petitioner having filed an Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal u/s 30 of the RDB Act challenging the auction sale held on 28.01.2009 and this Hon'ble Tribunal by its order dated 29.09.2015 was pleased to allow this Appeal and set aside the auction sale held in favour of the Auction Purchaser(s). Accordingly, certain directions were passed by this Tribunal which were also complied by the petitioner and hence, the document is required to be released by this Tribunal.
3. It is the further submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant that the petitioner/defendant having duly complied the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and the loan account having settled the petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is entitled to get back the original Sale Deed deposited with the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent bank while the mortgage was created with the bank.
4. This Tribunal having considered the submission made by the Petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in the Application and on perusal of the prayer made by the Petitioner in the Affidavit/petition, it is observed by this Tribunal that though the petitioner has deposited certain sum of money with this Tribunal and on that basis, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant having allowed by this Tribunal and the sale held on 28.01.2009 also found to have set aside by this Tribunal. However, subsequently, the Auction Purchaser(s) having approached Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai by way of an Appeal and wherein, the Hon'ble DRAT having directed this Tribunal to hear the matter once again afresh and this Tribunal having heard all the parties in the Appeal and pronounced a detailed order. Accordingly, the Appeal 03/2009 having dismissed by this Tribunal and the auction sale held 3MA No.357/2018 in TA 1431/2002
by the Ld. Recovery Officer having upheld, the Return of Document shall not arise to the petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in the case. Even otherwise, the return of documents shall take place only on the Application made by the bank who filed the OA before this Tribunal and the Return of Documents shall be made only through the bank concerned in terms of the DRT Regulations is in existence before the Tribunal.
5. It is also relevant to note that M/s.Union Bank of India who is the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in the TA 1431 of 2002 found to have filed an Application in IA No.2484/2018 seeking a direction to release the Title Deed in respect of the property of the petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to M/s.Union Bank of India wherein, the petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant having taken an objection that not to release the document to the M/s.Union Bank of India and filed a counter to that effect in the case.
6. This Tribunal having considered the case, which has a chequered history and having passed an order in Appeal No.03/2009 & Appeal No.09/2012, the petition filed by the Petitioner cannot be ordered as prayed for by this Tribunal. The release of documents, if any, to be made, the same shall be released to the bank alone, for which the Respondent Bank shall be at its liberty to file the necessary petition before this Tribunal in accordance with the law.
7. The order passed in Appeal No.03/2009 & Appeal No.09/2012 shall also to be considered as part of this order.
8. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this petition filed by the petitioner/1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is disposed of without any order or directions by this Tribunal.
(Dictated to my PA directly on the Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal on this the 16<sup>th</sup> Day of May, 2023).
**(M.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN)** **PRESIDING OFFICER**