The TRIBUNAL disposed of an interim appeal challenging recovery officer orders on security charges. The court directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the main appeal and security charge issue within 15 days.
Directed DRT to decide the appeal and security charge issue within 15 days.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No. 43/2022
Arising out of Appeal No. 1/2022 (DRT-III, Delhi)
Meeta Gupta Vs HDFC Bank
11.04.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Ld. counsel for appellant
Mr. Dharam Dev, Ld. counsel for respondent bank
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
This is an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by DRT-III, Delhi. The order runs as follows:-
“This matter has been taken up in view of the Order dated 15.12.2021 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C )3668/2021) vide which the direction was given that :-
”......in case appointment of the Presiding Officer to the three DRTs in Delhi do not materialize by 31.12.2021, the arrangement envisaged for the notification dated 13.12.2021 shall continue to operate till such appointment are being made. ”.
was issued in favour of appellant bank and against the respondents no. 1 to 4 for an amount of Rs. 13,37,399.13 alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 17.08.2011 till the date of realization. Since the respondents no. 1 to 4 did not bother to pay the dues of the bank, therefore, the possession of mortgaged property was taken through court appointed receiver and the possession of same is with the appellant bank and has been under security of 24hour watch and ward duty. It is also matter of record that respondent no. 5 herein i.e. objector filed objections before Ld. Recovery Officer which were allowed by Ld. Recovery Officer vide order dated 27.01.2022 since the CH bank was ready to release its charge over the subject property on receipt of amount of Rs. 10.0 lac but would not handover the property document and the objector had to execute the indemnity bond in favour of CH bank. CH bank also filed calculation sheet before Ld. Recovery Officer as on 31.12.2021 and as per said calculation sheet an amount of Rs. 49,99,535/-; which includes legal expenses Rs. 156700/-; valuation expenses Rs. 14,350/-; publication expenses 1,80,222/- and security expenses Rs. 46,48,263/- is balance against the RC.
Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the aforesaid order. He states that respondent bank be directed to show the provisions under which it has charged Rs.46,48,263/- as security charges of mortgaged property before the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for appellant further states that the appellant is ready to deposit all the amount subject to release of property in his favour.
After hearing the parties I am of the opinion that the DRT be given an opportunity to decide the matter as contemplated by it in para 6 of the impugned order. Learned counsel for appellant, however, prays that the DRT be asked to decide the same within a week.
Learned counsel for respondent prays that not only the issue of security charges, but Ld. DRT should also be asked to decide the appeal within a stipulated time. Mr. Anand Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant has no objection to the same.
In view of the above submissions and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances, the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT is directed to hear the issue regarding security charge and also the appeal within 15 days from receipt of the order and decide the same at the earliest and if for the reason of heavy board, he
is unable to hear the same within that period, the same may be heard at the earliest, preferably within a week, thereafter.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the parties to approach this Tribunal in case they are aggrieved by the order to be passed by the DRT.
(CHAIRPERSON)
-pk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an interim stay should be granted on orders of the Recovery Officer regarding security charges pending disposal of the main appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Meeta Gupta
HDFC Bank
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
