Mahendra Singh Tomar v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited and 4 Ors.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I.A. No. 87/2022 & I.A. No. 86/2022 In Appeal Dy. No. 198/2022
Date: 20.05.2022
Mahendra Singh Tomar Vs. Catholic Syrain Bank Ltd. & Ors. Present: Shri Ashok Pandey, counsel for the appellant, Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed by the DRT, Lucknow in S.A. No. 557/2018. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was inducted as partner of 5% in the respondent no. 2-Firm on 30.11.2017, when Shri K. G. Garg had retired from the partnership of the firm. The Bank also mortgaged the property in question of the appellant as security in the name of respondent no. 2-Firm. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant had only 5% share of the total assets of the respondent no. 2-firm and was only a partner. It is also contended that without classifying the account as NPA, the Bank issued demand notice dated 14.03.2014 to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and without any prior intimation, another demand notice dated 30.10.2015 was issued to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 without withdrawing the earlier demand notice dated 14.03.2014. It is further argued that again on 14.11.2015 a demand notice was issued without withdrawing earlier notices dated 14.03.2014 and 30.10.2015 and in all the three demand notices, the Bank has mentioned different outstanding dues against the appellant and had charged excessive rate of interest. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank took symbolic possession of the subject property on 15.02.2016 and obtained valuation report of Rs. 1.18 crores and fixed the reserve price at Rs. 1.10 crores, but the property in question has been sold for Rs. 1.00 crore, which is contrary to the Act and Rules. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5402 of 2004- Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 20.08.2004.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mahendra Singh Tomar
- respondent
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · May
- CNR
- 091090001982022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court