AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
This appeal is arising against the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by learned DRT Visakhapatnam whereby the appellant was directed to deposit entire debt due to the respondent no.1 bank in respect of Happy Home Loan amount and also directed to pay interest at the rate of 07 per cent on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser along with SARFAESI expenses within a month from the date of the order and the bank was restrained from taking any action against the scheduled property at “A” and “B” mentioned in the S.A. till one month from the date of this order. However, scheduled property at “A” and “B” was charged with another OCC loan account availed by M/s. Mahita Enterprises, represented by respondent no.4 herein, son of the appellant, till the loan account of M/s. Mahita Enterprises is closed.
Feeling aggrieved, appellant Smt. Kolla Kasturi preferred this appeal. S.A. applicant no. 2, Sri Kolla Sudheer who is son of the present appellant and S.A. Applicant no.3 Sri Kolla Satyanarayana is the husband of the appellant both has been impleaded as respondent in this appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused records.
Dispute in this appeal lies in a narrow compass. It is undisputed fact that appellant has availed Happy Home Loan and OCC Loan availed by M/s. Mahita Enterprises, represented by her son, from the respondent no.1 The Karur Vysya Bank Limited wherein the property in dispute was also charged. It is not in dispute that impugned property at Schedule “A” and “B” are secured assets of respondent bank and charged both son and husband of the appellant. One Gadde Srinivasa Rao who is brother-in-law of respondent no.4, Sri Kolla Sudheer is the guarantor of the loan.
Action of the bank initiating SARFAESI proceeding was challenged by the appellant alongwith her son and husband, who are respondent no.4 and 5 herein, by filing S.A. No. 284 of 2017 before the leaned DRT. Impugned order dated 07.06.2018 passed by learned DRT reflects that S.A. applicants wanted to settle the loan account of Happy Home Loan by paying entire debt due to the respondent bank. Objection filed by the respondent bank stated that disputed property at Schedule “A” and “B” are also charged to the OCC loan availed by M/s Mahita Enterprises along with Happy Home Loan. Separate demand notices were also issued for each loan account. Both the loan accounts were clubbed together as the same properties were charged in both the loan accounts. Pending aforesaid S.A., I.A. No. 1457 of 2017 was filed by the appellant praying for redemption of the property by paying sale price along with interest to the auction purchaser. Such interlocutory application was allowed by the learned DRT directing the S.A. applicants to discharge the property by paying entire debt due in respect of Happy Home Loan along with interest at the rate of 07 per cent to the auction purchaser. However, since the scheduled property “A” and “B” was also charged in the another OCC loan availed by M/s. Mahitha Enterprises, represented by son of the appellant, property documents were not returned by the respondent bank.
I find that learned DRT has passed order in favour of the appellant by allowing the aforesaid I.A., but appellant has not satisfied the direction of the order. Now appellant has prayed by filing the present appeal that she may be permitted to deposit the sale price to the bank with the direction that documents related to scheduled property “A” and “B” may be released. Such prayer cannot be accepted. Admittedly the properties in dispute are charged in both the loan accounts. Learned DRT while disposing of the S.A. granted liberty to the applicants to deposit the entire debt due in respect of Happy Home Loan account along with interest at the rate of 7% to the auction purchaser. When the same property is charged in another loan account, property documents cannot be released even if debt due for one loan account is fully deposited. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned DRT. The appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondent and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 of January, 2023.