Allowed

Omprakash R. Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

DRAT3 Sept 2024REGULAR APPEAL/104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal set aside an impugned order that issued a recovery certificate without adjusting amounts already received by the respondent bank via settlement and sale of pledged goods. The DRT was directed to dispose of the original application afresh on merits after considering these admitted receipts.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; the DRT directed to dispose of the application afresh after considering admitted receipts and issuing a fresh recovery certificate if due.

Omprakash R. Agarwal versus Central Bank of India & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Appeal No. 104/2013

¶2

Between Omprakash R Agarwal … Appellant/s V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶3

Mr. Gaurang Kinkhabwala along with Ms Sonali Jain, Advocate for Appellant.

¶4

Mr O.A. Das, along with Ms. Sunita Rawat, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶5

The appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 29.04.2009 in Transfer Original Application No. 159/1996 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad (D.R.T) issuing a Recovery Certificate for the realisation of ₹ 4,23,31,409.32/- together with interest of @ 4% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the O.A. till realisation.

¶6

The Recovery Certificate was issued accordingly, the appellant is aggrieved by the order mainly because, though there was an admission on the part of the bank that they had received a sum of ₹ 2,63,57,500/- by way of settlement of dues from the Government of Gujarat and also by way of sale of pledged goods, the said payments were not taken into account by the D.R.T., and therefore, there would less amount payable by the appellants after adjusting the aforesaid amount.

¶7

The Ld. Presiding Officer did not consider this fact and erroneously passed a decree for the entire amount that was claimed. There is an error on the face of the order and there was also a review

¶8

¶9

preferred by the appellant which was also rejected erroneously. Therefore, it is only in the interest of justice that the D.R.T be directed to consider the matter afresh on the merits after taking into consideration the amounts that have been received by the bank admittedly, and after adjusting those amounts a fresh Recovery Certificate be issued for whatever amount is found to be due from the appellants.

¶10

The appeal is disposed of and the impugned order is set aside. The contentions are kept open and the parties are at liberty to agitate the matter afresh, and the D.R.T., untrammelled by whatever is observed in the impugned judgment, dispose the O.A.

¶11

Sd/Chairperson

¶12

rm-11

¶13

Omprakash R. Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash R. Agarwal 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

Mr Tanishi Life Science Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Narayana Farm Produce Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

M/S.Nirmal Developers through Its Partners Mr.Mujahid Juber Momin versus Tjsb Sahakari Bank

Ritesh Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Ms R P Laser Tech versus Indian Bank

Reliable Polyesters Private Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda