AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—According to the petitioner, while he was abroad, 4th respondent purchased a property in his name. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioner gave his power of attorney to the 4th respondent who is none other than his brother. 4th respondent allegedly mortgaged the petitioner''s property to the Bank. He committed default and an O.A. filed by the Bank is pending before the DRT. Meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the 4th respondent. There upon, 4th respondent approached this Court and filed W.P. (C). 22589/12. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment directing consideration of an OTS proposal submitted by the 4th respondent and keeping the recovery proceedings in abeyance, in the meanwhile.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the Bank did not communicate any order on the OTS proposal made by the 4th respondent and that in the meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings are continued against him also.
Learned Standing Counsel who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that OTS proposal made by the 4th respondent was considered and rejected and that the same has been communicated to him also. If that be so, contention of the petitioner that it was without passing orders as directed by this Court in Ext. P3 judgment recovery proceedings are continued, is incorrect. Insofar as the legality of the revenue recovery action is concerned, admittedly, substantial amounts are due to the Bank. Petitioner is also a defaulter. Bank is an institution notified u/s 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act. In such a case, recovery proceedings now initiated by the Bank is unassailable.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Needless to say that this judgment shall not be the prejudice of the Bank in the proceedings before the DRT.