Federal Bank Ltd. vs Axis Bank Ltd. And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

Abovementioned two connected appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Appeal/Inward No. 506 of 2015 is filed with delay of 83 days. Notice in this appeal as well as application (I.A. No. 653/2015) seeking condonation of delay was issued. As per the appellant/applicant, copy of the impugned order dated 18th March, 2015 was applied on the same day but was prepared on 29th April, 2015. In the meantime the respondent-Bank had filed an application for modification of the order. Waiting decision thereon, the appellant did not file appeal against the order dated 18th March, 2015. The review application was decided on 10th July, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was filed on 14th August, 2015 with delay of 83 days.

Though the respondent-Bank has opposed the prayer made in the application for condoning this delay but, I am of the view that the explanation given in the application is sufficient for delayed approach. Accordingly, the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal is condoned The prayer made in the application is accordingly allowed. The application is accordingly disposed of.

Let the appeal be numbered and on being numbered as Appeal No. 383/2015, it is taken up for hearing along with the other connected Appeal No. 285/2015 with the concurrence of Counsel for the parties.

The appellant-Bank is aggrieved against the order dated 10th July, 2015 whereby the Tribunal below has modified/reviewed its earlier order passed on March 18, 2015. The Tribunal in its order dated 18th March, 2015 has held that the appellant-Bank is having prior charge over the property in question. In order to meet the ends of justice and to put rest to the litigation between the two Banks, the Tribunal below has directed that the authorized officer of the respondent-Bank, after deducting the/Sale/auction expenses, would release the NPA amount of Rs. 25,65,349/- to the appellant-Bank. The respondent-Bank filed an application seeking modification of this order when the Tribunal below on 10th July, 2015 has directed that the sale proceeds of the property would be equally shared between the two Banks along with interest accrued after deferring the sale expenses.

The Counsel for the appellant-Bank would contend that there is no justification on the part of the Tribunal below to modify or clarify or review the order as it will not fall within the scope of review as provided in Rule 5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

I am of the view that both the Banks ought to have settled the issue amicably. The Tribunal below, vide its order dated 18th March, 2015, has found that the appellant-Bank has prior charge over the property. The Tribunal below in order to balance the equities perhaps has directed equal distribution of the amount. The Counsel for the appellant-Bank would contend that this will lead to another complication as the O.A. filed by the appellant-Bank has been allowed and the Bank has been held entitled to recover the total amount along with interest. In this order, direction has also been issued to the respondent-Bank to release the amount in favour of the appellant-Bank. The Counsel for the respondent Axis Bank, however, submits that the respondent-Bank has filed an application seeking review of the order passed in the O.A. to bring it in tune with the order passed by the Tribunal below in the S.A. on 10th July, 2015. Since the Tribunal below is now considering the application for modification of the order passed in the O.A., it would be appropriate to remand the present case back to the Tribunal below so that one common order is passed to remove the anomalous situation. If any party thereafter feels aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal below, it may approach this Tribunal by filing an appeal.

The present appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.