The appellate tribunal allowed an appeal against an order that imposed costs. The court held that since the appellant offered to execute a Lok Adalat Award which depicted a settled compromise, no adjudication on merits was required.
The appeal is allowed; the impugned order dated 13.2.2015 is set aside; no order as to costs.
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.
MA 42/2019
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 20th of July, 2022
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
MA 42/2019
(MA 47/2012 in OA 234/1998 on the file of DRT-I, Chennai)
Between
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Represented by Mr. S. Saravanan, Chief Manager (Legal),
Registered Office at
The Ruby, 10th Floor, No.29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai.
Branch Office at:
No.715-C, 7th Floor, Spencer Plaza, Phase II, No.769, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
……Appellant
And
1
MA 42/2019
2
MA 42/2019
…. Respondents
Respondents 2 to 12 are given up.
| Counsel for Appellant : |
M/s V. Jayachandran Associates |
|---|---|
| Counsel for first respondent : |
Shri P.L. Narayanan |
ORDER
Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the order dated 13.2.2015 in MA 47/2012 in OA 234/1998 on the file of DRT-I, Chennai. First respondent herein viz.
IHFD Nagar Welfare Association, who are third parties to OA filed the above referred application to decide issue of mortgage rights of Assignor-Indian bank and render justice and that application is opposed by appellant herein (assignee of loan
account by Indian bank) and Tribunal below on consideration of material, allowed
that application and imposed costs of Rs.5.00 lakhs on the appellant herein and
aggrieved by the said order, present appeal is preferred.
3
MA 42/2019
Adalat Award, appellant herein intends to execute that Award and as on today there is no recovery certificate as it was withdrawn as per order dated 10.9.2007. He submitted that in view of Order dated 10.9.2007, impugned order may be set
aside by recording the above submission.
herein may be recorded and let appellant execute Lok Adalat Award but not the recovery certificate dated 22.11.1999, for which, advocate for appellant represented that they are going to execute Lok Adalat Award only and not the
4
MA 42/2019
recovery certificate dated 22.11.1999, as it is already withdrawn as per order
dated 10.9.2007.
RDDB & FI Act to withdraw Recovery Certificate, I am of the view that no adjudication is required on merits and appeal has to be allowed and the impugned
order dated 13.2.2015 is to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, appeal MA 42/2019 is allowed. No order as to costs.
[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 20th July, 2022]
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appeal under Section 20 of RDDBFI Act should be allowed when parties agreed to execute a Lok Adalat Award instead of an impugned recovery certificate?
Whether the DRT has power to set aside an order without adjudication on merits given the existence of a compromise and offer to execute Award?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.
IHFD Nagar Welfare Association
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
