At, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
For the Appellants: Neha Kapoor, Mohit Bhadu, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Mayank Bansal, R2, Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocates.
This order is being prepared while working from home for being signed and communicated to the parties because of the suspension of functioning of DRAT due to spread of Corona Virus (Covid-19) in the entire country. This procedure for the preparation of orders by quasi judicial Tribunals and their communication to the concerned litigants in place of formal pronouncement in open Court has been recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of its judgments AIR 2008 SC 2594, State Bank of India and Ors. v. S.N. Goyal (Para 19) wherein it was observed that:“………….While some quasi judicial Tribunals fix a day for pronouncement and pronounce their orders on the day fixed, many quasi judicial authorities do not pronounce their orders. Some publish or notify their orders. Some prepare and sign the orders and communicate the same to the party concerned…………………….”2. I now proceed with the disposal of this miscellaneous appeal filed against an order passed on 28.6.2019 by DRT-II, Delhi in respondent-Bank’s Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for recovery of crores of public money from the two appellants, who are mother and son, and their business associate, respondent No. 2 herein, who were running business in the name of respondent No. 3 herein which Company had been sanctioned some financial facilities by respondent No. 1-Bank almost two decades back. The appellants and respondent No. 2 are the defendants in the O.A. which shockingly is pending since the year 2005. The O.A. applicant Bank has sought joint and several money decree against the appellants as well as respondent No. 2. They have leveled allegations against each other of forgery of their signatures on loan documents which allegations and counter allegations are as per the case of the Bank are nothing but collusive attempt on the part of the appellants and respondent No. 2 to ensure that Bank’s O.A. does not get decided at all.3. During the pendency of the O.A. respondent No. 2-defendnat had moved an application for attachment before judgment of some properties of his co-defendants, appellants herein. The DRT had allowed that prayer of respondent No. 2 herein and the appellants-defendants were directed to furnish security for Rs. four crores within two weeks time else their three properties of the value of crores of rupees were to stand attached. The appellants had not furnished the security demanded from them.4. The appellants-defendants also sought from DRT an order for attachment of one property which they were claiming to have devolved on respondent No. 2 herein after the death of his father who was the owner. That application of the appellants was however rejected on the ground that defendant cannot seek an order of attachment of co-defendant’s property. The appellants then moved an application before the DRT pointing out that when respondent No. 2 herein had sought an order of attachment before judgment in respect of the property of respondent No. 2 herein that prayer was allowed but when they sought similar order against their co-defendant their prayer was rejected and therefore the order attaching their properties at the instance of their co-defendant should be recalled. That prayer was however, rejected and then the controversy reached this Tribunal. That way, as per the case of the appellants, they had been discriminated against by judicial orders of a quasi judicial forum.5. Detailed arguments were advanced from the side of the appellants, respondent No. 2 and the Bank.6. However, I need not go into their submissions and counter submissions since that will be undertaking an academic and futile exercise because of the fact that the appeal filed by the appellants (being Appeal No. 192/2019) challenging the decision of the DRT attaching properties of the appellants at the instance of the respondent No. 2 herein has been allowed by me vide order dated 19.5.2020 and the order of the DRT attaching the properties of the appellants-defendants has been quashed holding that no order of attachment before judgment in a suit can be passed at the instance of a defendant against his co-defendant and such an application can be maintained only by a plaintiff. That reasoning and judgment fully applies to the present appeal since it was claimed by the learned Counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments that the present legal battle was only for seeking an order of attachment bef
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ore judgment against respondent No. 2 herein in respect of one property in Haus Khas, New Delhi which they were claiming to be belonging to him.7. Since the appeal of the appellants against the order of the DRT attaching their properties stands allowed their present appeal on the parity of reasoning that an order of attachment before judgment can be sought only by a plaintiff and not by a defendant against a co-defendant has to be dismissed. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed.