Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

GBM MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD. & ANR. Versus INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS.

2013 (7) TMI 1068 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

WP No. 392 of 2013, WP No. 393 of 2013 - Dated:- 1-7-2013 - THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Appearance : Mr. Asish Chakraborty, Adv., Ms. Aruna Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv. JUDGEMENT The parties agree that the facts and law are the same in both matters and an order on the one petition will govern the other matter. The facts relating to WP No. 392 of 2013 are referred to herein. Despite obtaining directions, the respondent bank has chosen not to use any affidavit. The writ p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Section 19 of the said Act of 1993 before the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained a certificate therein. The bank applied under Section 25 of the said Act of 1993 to execute the certificate and obtained an order in the nature of attachment relating to an immovable property on January 4, 2013. Pursuant to such order of attachment passed by the recovery officer, the petitioners say that a proclamation was put up on the property owned by the petitioners that it had been attached .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

when the constituent obtained delivery thereof. It appears that prior to the constituent obtaining the title deeds from the respondent bank, the constituent had made over copy deeds relating to the same property to the UCO Bank on the basis of which a mortgage was created. According to the respondent bank herein, the bank s constituent had obtained the certified copy of the deed on some false allegation and without reference to the respondent bank since the respondent bank was in possession of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by an order of May 3, 2007. The sale notice had been published in newspapers on March 13, 2007. Though it appears to be somewhat hazy as to how a property was sold in an appeal arising out of a petition challenging the bank s action taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, nothing need be said on such aspect of the matter since the connected orders passed in the appeal are not available and, in any event, the recovery .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ide resulted in the recovery officer passing the impugned order on April 2, 2013. At the time that the present petition was received, the respondent bank had questioned the propriety of the order being challenged in this jurisdiction. Such objection was repelled by an order dated May 14, 2013. Notwithstanding such position, a further argument has been made on behalf of the respondent bank that the petitioners should be left free to pursue the remedy available under Section 30 of the said Act of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

twithstanding some other remedy being available against the order passed by the quasi-judicial authority. The petitioners also rely on a judgment reported at (1998) 6 SCC 658 for the proposition that in course of exercising the authority as the recovery officer has in this case, such officer had only to assess whether the applicant before such officer was in possession of the property in question in his own right and not adjudicate upon the applicant s title to the property. Under Section 29 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion. In the second of the Supreme Court judgments referred to by the petitioners herein, it was observed that the recovery officer had no authority to assess any dispute pertaining to title and, to the extent such adjudication had been made, it was without jurisdiction. The petitioners say that since the authority exercised by the debt recovery officer in this case by going into the question of title is without jurisdiction, the availability of the alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ale in favour of the petitioner company but also in ignorance of the bounds of the jurisdiction of the debt recovery officer, it cannot be said that these petitioners should be left free to assert their title to a property which has been sold by a High Court. The debt recovery officer, in this case, surprisingly, decided on the conduct of the bank s constituent in furnishing copy title deeds to UCO Bank at a time when the respondent bank was in possession of the original title deeds. In the abse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.