Dismissed

M.Chandra Rao & Anr. v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

DRAT9 Dec 2022MISC APPEAL/29/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by property owners against an order declining their application to be impleaded as third parties in a mortgage proceeding. The Tribunal held that the remedy for third party claims lies with the Recovery Officer under Rule 11 of Schedule II to the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal MA 29/2014 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.Chandra Rao & Anr. versus Central Bank of India & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

MA 29/2014

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 9^th Day of December, 2022

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA 29/2014

¶6

(MA 105/2012 in OA 14/2011 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

Mr. M. Chandra Rao, S/o Muthukrishna Naidu No.11/1, Parthasarathy Reddy Street, Kodungaiyur, Chennai 600 118.

¶9

Mrs. Vaithegi, W/o Mr. M. Chandra Rao, No.11/1, Parthasarathy Reddy Street, Kodungaiyur, Chennai 600 118.

¶10

……Appellant

¶11

And

¶12

Central Bank of India, Rep. By its Senior Manager, Broadway Branch, No.165. ALC Complex, Broadway, Chennai 600 108.

¶13

Mrs. Geetha W/o N.V. Mahalingam

¶14

N. V. Mahalingam S/o N. Viswanathan

¶15

M.G. Premkumar S/o N.V. Mahalingam

¶16

¶17

MA 29/2014

¶18

Respondents 2 to 4 are at:

¶19

No.3A, Balasubramaniam Street, Nemilicherry, Chromepet, Chennai 600044.

¶20

…Respondents

¶21

Counsel for Appellants	: Shri K.A. Ramakrishnan
Counsel for R1 bank	: Shri K. Nazir Ahmed

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Appeal is preferred under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due

¶24

to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against order dated 7.2.2013 in MA No.105/2012 in OA 14/2011 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai, wherein appellants herein approached Tribunal below as third parties, contending that they are owners of schedule property and that first respondent bank has no right to proceed against their property. Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, on consideration of contentions raised in the said application recorded that remedy of appellants lies under Rule 11 of Schedule II to Income Tax Act before Recovery Officer and observing so, dismissed MA 105/2012. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

Advocate for appellants submitted that as appellants herein are original

¶27

owners and defendants in the OA have no right to mortgage appellants’ property

¶28

¶29

MA 29/2014

¶30

in favour of respondent bank, therefore, appellants approached Tribunal below

¶31

to determine their rights. Advocate for first respondent bank opposed and submitted that Tribunal below rightly pointed out that remedy of appellants is under Rule 11 of Schedule II to Income Tax Act as OA is already disposed off and Recovery Officer has to decide claim of third parties.

¶32

Considering submissions of both sides, I do not find any wrong in the impugned order of Tribunal below because it rightly recorded that remedy of appellants is to approach Recovery Officer under Rule 11 of Schedule II to Income Tax Act and according to said Rule, Recovery Officer is expected to investigate

¶33

into the claim of third parties including interest and possession.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid Rule position, I am of the view that appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Accordingly, Appeal MA 29/2014 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶36

All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶37

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 9^th Day of December, 2022]

¶38

Sd/- [ Justice S. Ravi Kumar ] CHAIRPERSON

¶39

M.Chandra Rao & Anr. v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Chandra Rao & Anr. v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jesima Garments Rep by N Alikhan and Wahidha Banu versus Bank of Baroda

Mr K Ramasamy versus Ao,Arcil

Ms Mahanam water Works versus Indian Overseas Bank

Kp George versus State Bank of India

R Ponnusamy versus South Indian Bank

A.O.,Phoenix Arc Ltd. Ltd. Managing Director Mr S Balasundaram versus M/s Oyester Homes Chennai Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.