Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sandeep Kumar Reddy

DRT14 May 2024OA/22/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This EPZ appeal challenged an order rejecting a claim petition under Section 30 of the RDB Act via Income Tax Act rules. The Appeal Bench held that the Recovery Officer erred in rejecting the claim without sufficient opportunity to produce evidence. The order was set aside, and the claimant was directed to register the petition for a decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; Recovery Officer directed to register the claim petition and decide it on merits.

Union Bank of India versus Sandeep Kumar Reddy — Property and Title | DRT (2024)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF, MAY ,2024 PRESENT: SRI. GUMMADI GoPIcHAND HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

RA. NO. 10 0F 2023 IN CPIR. NO, 210 0F 2023 IN RP. NO. 714 0F 201a IN oA. NO. 168 0F 2013

¶3

Between

¶4

Smt. N, Anuhya, Flat No.302, Gayathri Residency, Whitefields Kondapur, Hydera bad-500084.

¶5

....Applicant/s

¶6

And

¶7

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd, The Ruby, 1Oth Floor, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar gWest) Mumbai_400028. And others.

¶8

...Respondent/s

¶9

This appeal is filed by a 3'd party craiming rights over the schedure property u/s 30 of the RDB Act, 1993 r/w Rule 86 of II schedule of the Income Tax Act challenging the order passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer dt,07.72.2023 in CpIR No.210/23 in Rp.No.714118 in OA No.168/13.

¶10

Thls appeal is resisted by the 1.t 1..9-:P"9-!:.:'t^{bv ril i ns cou nter.}

¶11

Heard both the Ld. Counsel a

¶12

itqrial brought on record. -,It 1 4 ilAY 2Al

¶13

Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order dt.07.12.2023 in CPIR 210/23 passed by the td. Recovery Officer,DRT-1, Hyderabad is sustainable or not?

¶14

A perusal of the record makes it clear that the Appellant herein filed CpIR in R.P.No.714/lB in O.A.168/13 before the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Hyderabad claiming that she is having a share in the schedule property in dispute. The staff of the Recovery officer returned the CpIR questioning the locusstandi of the Petitioner and non-filing of the documents In support of her claim over the property and thereafter the claim petition was resubmitted on 75.L2.2023 and later the Ld. Recovery officer passed the impugned order dt.07.12.2023 by rejecting the claim petition on the premise that the Petitioner herein has not placed any material to substantiate that the property in dispute is ancestral property and joint family property. Challenging the said impugned order, the present appeal is filed.

¶15

As per the record, it is clear that the ld. Recovery officer without giving suFficient opportunity to the claim petitioner to produce relevant material, passed the impugned order dt.07.12.2023 rejecting the claim petition. The claim of the Petitioner can be adjudicated aFter appearance of the Respondents and after adducing necessary evidence by the claim petitioner. But the Ld. Recovery officer without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to produce relevant material documents and oral evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, rejected the said claim petition.

¶16

so in view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dt.O7.t2.2023 passed in CpIR No.21Ol23 by the Recovery Officer is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Accordingly, RA 10/23 is ailowed by setting aside the impugned order dt.o7't2.2023 passed in cplR No.210/23 and the Recovery officer is hereby directed to register the claim petition filed by the Appellant herein and decide the same on merits.

sd/-

1 ^ MfiY 2ll2f

presiding Officer

TRUE coPY , /(/t^..r '""1:|ff:{;:ftr77nu

Union Bank of India v. Sandeep Kumar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sandeep Kumar Reddy

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ghanshyamdas Gems Jewels

State Bank of India versus M/S. D. Crafts Dental Lab

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Shyma Khan

State Bank of India versus Sri. Silamulla Chandrakanth

M S Venkateswara Food Products versus Karur Vysya Bank

Smt. Nirupama versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited