Remanded

State Bank of India v. Shri.Vinod Jain & Ors.

DRAT13 Mar 2024REGULAR APPEAL/60/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerns a recovery proceeding where the Tribunal referred the matter to a High Power Committee due to disputes over mortgage priority. Ordering the Committee dissolved, the court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to decide the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the matter was remanded to the Tribunal-below to decide the overdraft application afresh within three months.

State Bank of India versus Shri.Vinod Jain & Ors. — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

RA 60/2019

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 13^th of March, 2024

¶4

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

¶5

RA 60/2019

¶6

(TA 602/2017 (OA 666/2012 on the file of DRT-I Bangalore)

¶7

on the file of DRT-II Bangalore)

¶8

Between

¶9

State Bank of India

¶10

Rep. by its Chief Manager,

¶11

Badami House,

¶12

N.R. Square Bangalore.

¶13

……Appellant Bank

¶14

And

¶15

Shri Vinod Jain,

¶16

S/o Shri Mohan Lal Ji,

¶17

No.747, 1^st Cross, DA Street,

¶18

Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 018.

¶19

And also at:

¶20

No.68/1, 2^nd floor, 5^th Main, 6^th Cross, Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 018.

¶21

Indira Devi,

¶22

W/o Shri Vinod Jain No.747, 1^st Cross, DA Street, Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 018.

¶23

¶24

RA 60/2019

¶25

Punjab National Bank, Mahalakshmipuram Branch, No.1078, 11^th Main, 9^th Cross, Dr. Modi Hospital Road, Bangalore 560 086.

¶26

Corporation Bank, Mahalakshmi Layout Branch, No.721, 7^th Main, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560 086.

¶27

Union Bank of India, (formerly known as Corporation Bank) Mahalakshmi Layout Branch, No.721, 7^th Main road, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560 086.

¶28

(Amended as per order dated 3.4.2023 in IA 102/2023)

¶29

….. Respondents

¶30

Counsel for Appellant Bank : M/s K. Chandrasekaran & Co. Counsel for R1 & R2 : None Counsel for R3 : None Counsel for 5^th respondent : M/s S. Sethuraman & Co.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against order dated 27.7.2017 in Transfer Application No.602/2017 (OA 666/2012 filed in DRT-I Bangalore)

¶34

passed by DRT-II, Bangalore. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

¶35

¶36

RA 60/2019

¶37

Appellant herein filed OA for recovery of Rs.48,31,689/- from defendants 1 and 2 (R1 & R2 herein). D3 & D4 (R3 and R5 herein), which are

¶38

also banks are impleaded since same property is also mortgaged to them subsequent to mortgage in favour appellant bank. Tribunal below through impugned order, instead of deciding who has got first charge over mortgaged schedule property referred the matter to a High Power Committee constituted as per Circular bearing No.D.N.29(9)/2014-Judi dated 7.4.2014 and directed the appellant bank and other two banks viz., D3 and D4 to approach the said Committee with a copy of the order and come back to the Tribunal for appropriate order after resolving their disputes. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is preferred.

¶39

Heard both sides.

¶40

Advocate for appellant bank submitted that from the pleadings it is clear that mortgage in favour of D3 and D4 banks is subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of appellant bank. Unfortunately, without deciding this issue, Tribunal below referred the matter to High Power Committee. Now, both sides submitted that High Power Committee is no more in existence as on today and they have also not approached the High Power Committee. But the

¶41

fact that dispute as to who got first charge over schedule property remained unresolved.

¶42

¶43

RA 60/2019

¶44

Considering the same, instead of going into merits and demerits of the

¶45

appeal, I am of the view, this is a fit case to remit back the matter to Tribunal below to decide the OA afresh, giving opportunity to appellant and defendants

¶46

3 and 4 i.e., respondents 3 & 5 herein, since main defendants viz., borrowers remained ex parte. As OA is of the year 2012, I deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal below to decide the OA as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3

¶47

months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶48

In the result, Appeal RA 60/2019 is ordered accordingly. There will be

¶49

no order as to costs.

¶50

7. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶51

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 13^th March, 2024)

¶52

State Bank of India v. Shri.Vinod Jain & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shri.Vinod Jain & 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

Indian Bank versus S.S. Impex

Ms Over Drives rep by Mr Prop Mr Sundar Raj versus Union Bank of India

C Punniyamoorthy versus a O Central Bank of India and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Shri.Gurubasayya & Ors.

State Bank of India versus Shri.Umesh Babu & Ors.

State Bank of India versus Shri.Mahaveer Chand Kothari & Ors.