At, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Chennai
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: K. GNANAPRAKASAM (CHAIRPERSON)
For Petitioner: S. Shanmuga Sundaram, Advocate And For Respondents: W.S. Jayaprakash, Advocate.
1. Respondents moved by the DRT by filing two applications one for releasing the property situated at No. 5, 3rd Cross Road, Gopal Reddy Colony, Jawahar Nagar Chennai and another application for stay of the proceedings in pending the OA-1779/2004 and both were allowed by the DRT-2 at Chennai, by order dated 14.2.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank has preferred these appeals
I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has satisfied this Tribunal that the Tribunal committed an error in passing order by relying upon the representation made by the respondent that the One Time Settlement scheme dated 23.6.2004 was accepted but on the other hand the respondents themselves in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions in para 8 have stated that the Bank pressurised the respondent to accept the One Time Settlement for Rs. 72.50 lakh and they were compelled to send a letter dated 8.7.2004 accepting the OTS amount of Rs. 72.50 lakh. But, however, while accepting respondent sought time for 90 days to pay the said amount, which was rejected by the appellant Bank by letter dated 13.7.2004, and therefore, there was no settlement under OTS scheme at all. But, however, the Tribunal relying upon the OTS and the conditions therefor, ordered release of the property at No. 5, 3rd Cross Road, Gopal Reddy Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Chennai.
3. As the respondents themselves have sworn in the affidavit that the OTS was brought about under threat and coercion and the said OTS was also rejected by the Bank by letter dated 13.7.2004, the observation of the Tribunal that there was an OTS is patent error, and the Same is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. As such the direction given by the DRT to the appellant to release the property is hereby set aside.
4. With regard to stay granted by the DRT in respect of further proceedings of the sale of the property mentioned in the S A., it is submitted that the appellant Bank is entitled to proceed with the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and there was no impediment to do so, as the notice was issued prior to the 11.11.2004, that being the date on which the Act was amended, and that fact was not taken into account by the DRT in granting the stay. Hence,
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
the order of stay granted by the DRT is also set aside. 5. But, however, the DRT-2, Chennai, is directed to hear both the parties in the stay petition and pass orders in accordance with law. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.