Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SOMENATH MALU vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK on 14 December 2020
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2020
PRESENT: Dr. T. RAVI SHANKAR, HON’BLE CHAIRPERSON
Appeal No. 45 of 2020
(Arising out of IA No.658/2020 in OA. No.261/2020 on the file of DRT, Cuttack)
In the matter of: Hearing of the Appeal.
Somnath Malu
….Petitioner
-Versus-
The Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank.
…. Respondent
Counsel for Petitioner:
Mr. Lucky Mohanty
Counsel for Respondent:Mrs. Aparajita Ghosh
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.
O R D E R
This Appeal impugns the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Cuttack made in I.A. No.658/2020 dated 06/08/2020 arising out of OA No.261 of 2020 dated 18/09/2020 wherein the Ld. P.O., DRT, Cuttack permitted the Applicant bank to appropriate the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs which was already deposited by the borrower in the bank and presently lying in a no lien account with the bank.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant borrower stated that no notice was received by them regardingthe hearing of the IA submitted by the bank before the Tribunal below so far and a reading of the order has passed by the Presiding Officer would reveal the same. Learned counsel also stated that he has been always ready for an OTS and the bank has been delaying the OTS in this case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent bank stated that notice about the hearing of the I.A. was duly served upon the Appellant borrowerthrough the DRT, Cuttack and the appellant did not choose to appear before the Tribunal below and put forth his case. Learned counsel for the bank stated that the Appellant borrower did not comply with the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Orissamade in WP(C) No.21116 of 2018 with respect to regularizing his account with the bank. Learned counsel added that the Appellant borrower is due and liable to repay the debt to the bank and the total dues presently exceed Rs. 1 crore and that the appropriation of the sum of Rs.3 lakhs lying in a no lien account would not in any way cause any prejudice whatsoever to the appellant borrower.
4. Heard both sides.
5. It is seen that the Appellant borrower is due and liable to repay more than Rs.1 crore to the bank and thatan opportunity had been given to the Appellant borrower to make a submission in the IA filed by the bank in the Tribunal below but the appellant borrower has not utilized the same. It is also seen that the Appellant borrower did not abide by the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa made in WP(C) No.21116 of 2018with respect to the payments directed to be made to the bank.
6. Therefore, in view of the fact that due notice was given to the Appellant borrower by the Tribunal belowto appear in IA No.658/2020, in view of the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant borrower if the amount lying in the no lien account is appropriated towards the loan account, from the fact that the appellant has to repay public money of more than Rs.1 crore to the bank it would be appropriate if the following order is passed.:
7. ‘The bank shall be at liberty to appropriate the money which is lying with it in ano lien account to the loan account of the Appellant borrower.’
8. In the result the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of the judgment be sent to the parties and DRT concerned and be also uploaded in the website of this Tribunal.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 14th day of December, 2020).
Sd/= (Dr. T. Ravi Shankar) Chairperson