AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing no.231/2021 titled as UCO Bank Vs. Paresh Chhabra & others against appellants and the respondent no.2. DRT-III, Delhi vide final order dated 24.10.2019 allowed the O.A. and passed the following order:-
18.In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendants have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the contentions of the defendants as baseless. I hereby allow this O.A. as the applicant bank has proved its claim beyond reasonable doubt.
ORDER
(i)I allow this OA against all the defendants, but at the first instance held defendant no.3, to pay to the applicant bank jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.53,06,704/- (Rupees Fifty-Three Lacs Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Four Only) together with costs and future interest @9.70% per annum from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged property namely, "Flat no.C-404, Tower-C, 4th Floor, AVJ Heights, Plot no.GH-12/2, Sector-Zeta-1, Greater Noida." In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties firstly of the defendant no.3 and thereafter of the defendant no.1 & 2.
(ii)The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer-II, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi.
(iii)Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 28.11.2019.
(iv)Copies of final order be sent to all concerned free of cost.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellants stated that as per the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 the defendant no.3/respondent no.2 in the appeal has been made liable to pay the decretal amount and in the eventuality of defendant no.3/respondent no.2's failing to pay, the decretal amount has been ordered to be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged property. It has been further ordered that in case of shortfall in the recovery of the decretal amount the balance amount can be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable property of the respondent no.2 and thereafter, from the appellants. Sh. Kumar Stated that the respondent no.2 is already under insolvency proceedings and moratorium is in operation, but resolution plan has not been approved so far as per his information. He, in the circumstances, seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to revive the appeal in the altered circumstances, particularly in case the decretal amount could not be recovered from the respondent no.2 in terms of the order dated 24.10.2019.
In view of the submission made by the counsel for the appellants, the present appeal is allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn but with liberty to the appellants to initiate appropriate proceedings for revival of the appeal as per law in case of altered circumstances. However, the issue of making pre-deposit is left open.