Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2011) 05 DRAT CK 0009

Punjab & Sind Bank vs Anchor Impex Inc. And Ors.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 20 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 4 BC 191

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.M. Malik, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Case Nos. 371, 372, 373, 374 Of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 420 words

J.M. Malik, J

1.

Vide the impugned order dated 27.1.2010, I passed the following orders:

12 I hereby modify the order passed by the learned DRT and direct the appellant to deposit 12% simple interest in respect of pendente lite and future period. As undertaken by the borrowers during argument, they shall pay the same within two months with the Bank, failing which the Bank will be at liberty to execute the decree as per law.

2.

Thereafter, the review petitions were filed which were dismissed vide my order dated 2.8.2010.

3.

Thereafter, Dr. R.P. Sharma, Recovery Officer vide his order dated 5.4.2011 extended the time granted by this Court. The said order runs as follows:

Matter was presented. The CD No. 2 Sh. B.L Agarwal was personally present before the Tribunal and was made aware that he had deposited the loan amount after that a sum of Rs. 75 lacs approximately on account of interest is outstanding. He has sought four months time to pay the said amount and stated that the said amount will be paid in four monthly instalments of Rs. 20 lacs each from the month of May. He sought time for the said purpose. Request is allowed.

Matter is listed for further hearing on 9.5.2011.

4.

I have heard the Counsel for the parties. Dr. R.P. Sharma, Recovery Officer was also summoned as it appeared to the Court that he had committed the Contempt of Court.

5.

I have heard Dr. R.P. Sharma, Recovery Officer who appears in person. He tenders apologies and submits that due to inadvertence the above said order was passed.

6.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent contends that he is ready to pay the entire amount. He has tendered three post-dated cheques which the learned Counsel for the appellant Bank accepts without any prejudice. It is, therefore, ordered that the order passed by Dr. R.P. Sharma, Recovery Officer extending the time was without jurisdiction and does not exist in the eyes of law. The said order stands quashed. The order passed by this Court shall prevail. In case the respondents do not pay the amount nothing will preclude the Bank to execute the decree as ordered vide my order dated 27.1.2010. Dr. R.P. Sharma, Recovery Officer is hereby warned to be careful in future. The matter regarding him and the appeals stand disposed of.

7.

Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the learned DRT forthwith.