AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson
This Appeal is preferred under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against order dated 7.2.2013 in MA No.105/2012 in OA 14/2011 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai, wherein appellants herein approached Tribunal below as third parties, contending that they are owners of schedule property and that first respondent bank has no right to proceed against their property. Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, on consideration of contentions raised in the said application recorded that remedy of appellants lies under Rule 11 of Schedule II to Income Tax Act before Recovery Officer and observing so, dismissed MA 105/2012. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for appellants submitted that as appellants herein are original owners and defendants in the OA have no right to mortgage appellants’ property in favour of respondent bank, therefore, appellants approached Tribunal below to determine their rights. Advocate for first respondent bank opposed and submitted that Tribunal below rightly pointed out that remedy of appellants is under Rule 11 of Schedule II to Income Tax Act as OA is already disposed off and Recovery Officer has to decide claim of third parties.
Considering submissions of both sides, I do not find any wrong in the impugned order of Tribunal below because it rightly recorded that remedy of appellants is to approach Recovery Officer under Rule 11 of Schedule II to Income Tax Act and according to said Rule, Recovery Officer is expected to investigate into the claim of third parties including interest and possession.
In view of the aforesaid Rule position, I am of the view that appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, Appeal MA 29/2014 is dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.