Disposed

Mr Suresh Kumar Jindal v. Corporation Bank Now as Union Bank of India

DRAT6 Dec 2022REGULAR APPEAL/137/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of three interlocutory applications. It directed the deposit of refunded interest in a fixed deposit. A notice to introduce a prospective buyer was adjourned. An application to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect a property was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Application for FDR on deposited interest allowed but pending appeal final listing. Application to appoint Local Commissioner allowed.

Mr Suresh Kumar Jindal versus Corporation Bank Now as Union Bank of India — Insurance | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Appeal No.137/2022 In

¶3

Arising out of Appeal No.13/2022 & R.C.No.72/2018 (DRT-II, Delhi)

¶4

Suresh Kumar Jindal Vs Union Bank of India & Anr.

¶5

06.12.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶6

Present: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Ld. counsel for appellant

¶7

Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Ld. counsel for respondent no.1

¶8

Ms. Anisha Jain, Ld. counsel for respondent no.2

¶9

This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.

¶10

I.A. No.635/2022

¶11

This application has been filed by the appellant seeking direction to the learned Registrar of this Tribunal to keep the amount of Rs.49 lacs deposited by the applicant/appellant in compliance of Section 21 of the Act in the form of interest-bearing FDR till adjudication of the present appeal on merit.

¶12

Heard. Without prejudice to the right and contentions of the parties, the Registrar is directed to keep the amount in FDR. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶13

I.A. No.566/2022

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is another I.A. (No. 566/2022) filed by the appellant seeking permission to introduce a prospective buyer and to permit him to deposit amount of Rs.3.11 crore to match the amount paid by respondent no.2 in the purported auction dated 10.01.2020, and this would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Let the amount be deposited with this Tribunal. It would, however, be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. This issue will be taken up and decided at the time of final disposal.

¶15

I.A. No.636/2022

¶16

There is one more application (I.A.No.636/2022) filed by the appellant praying for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to carry

¶17

out a thorough inspection of the construction being carried out at the property in question and find out the nature of constrution being carried out and submit a detailed report qua the same along with relevant photographs and videos of construction. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respodnent no.2 has initiated certain construction works at the property in question thereby changing the basic structure of the property in question, though he has stated before this Tribunal that he is only carrying out renovation works of the proeprty in question. It is submitted that the appelant is ready to bear the expense of the Local Comissioner to be appointed.

¶18

Heard. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nikhil Palli (Mobile: 9811676973) is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the aforesaid property in question on a date to be fixed in consultation with the counsel for the appellant and inspect the property in question and to file a detailed report with this Tribunal along with photograph and videos of construction. The Local Commissioner will issue a one week’s advance notice to respodnent no.2 before his visit to the property. The Local Commissioner can be contracted telephonically by the appellant and inform him of this order. The Registry is also directed to contact and inform the Local Commissioner about this order. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 1 lakh , out of which 50% is to be given in advance. It is made clear that the fee of the Local Commissioner will be borne by the appellant. Apart from the fee, the charges in respect of photography and videogrpahy of the cosntruction work and to and fro charges of the Local Commissioner for visiting the property in question will be borne by the appellant. The job entrusted to the Local Commissioner be executed within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and report thereof be filed with this Tribunal within 10 days thereafter.

¶19

Application stands disposed of.

¶20

Appeal No.137/2022

¶21

List the matter for final arguments on 20.03.2023. Let copy of the reply be furnished to the counsel for the appellant today itself and rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks, in the meanwhile.

¶22

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶23

-pk

Mr Suresh Kumar Jindal v. Corporation Bank Now as Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Suresh Kumar Jindal v. Corporation Bank Now as Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Nirmala Goswami and Ors. versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Surjit Singh Bhalla and Ors. versus Development Credit Bank Ltd.

Religare Finvest Limited versus Anjani Kumar (Huf) and Ors.

M/S Leepak Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Canara Bank

Shalini Birla versus Central Bank of India

Central Bank of India versus Mrs Amita Kapoor and Ors.