State Bank Of India vs Raghubir Hospital Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

Perused the affidavit of service dated 20.12.2012 and the newspaper publication of the notice. It appears that pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2012, the notice to respondent No. 3, Mrs. Neeta Sood for today has been served upon her through publication in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 14.12.2012. The service of notice is, therefore, held to be sufficient. Since none is present for respondent No. 3 today, this appeal shall be heard ex parte against her. The appeal is already proceeding ex parte against the other respondents.

Heard Mr. Mittal on appeal. He submits that the respondent No. 1 company, of which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors, was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 650 lacs by the appellant Bank in the year 2006-07 as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had mortgaged their residential house and agricultural land Khasra Nos. 3890, 3900, 3901, 3917 situated in village Dasna, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad (UP) in favour of the Bank and had also stood as guarantors for the repayment of the said loan. The respondents, however, defaulted in the repayment of the loan and as such the Bank filed O.A. No. 151/2011 before DRT-I, Delhi for the recovery of Rs. 11,03,93,384/- besides the pendente lite and future interest and cost, which is still pending disposal before the Tribunal below. He points out that the aforesaid agricultural land was acquired by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and a compensation amount of Rs. 1,05,59,999/- was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), which is lying in deposit with the SLAO, Ghaziabad. He submits that the appellant had moved an application (I.A. No. 19/2012) before the DRT for release of the aforesaid amount either in favour of the Bank or for directing the SLAO, Ghaziabad to deposit the same with the Registry of the Tribunal, but the DRT, vide impugned order dated 30.5.2012, has only directed the SLAO, Ghaziabad not to disburse the amount of compensation without the orders of the Tribunal and did not allow the reliefs as claimed. The contention of Mr. Mittal is that at present the said amount is not earning any interest and if the same is allowed to be deposited in an interest-bearing account of any Bank, it would be beneficial to both the appellant creditor Bank as well as to the respondent borrowers. According to him, till now an interest loss of about Rs. 55 lakh has already taken place.

Since the borrower/respondents had mortgaged their agricultural land with the Bank and the Bank's claim/charge is recorded in the revenue records (Khatoni) of the said land and as per status report (page 268 of the appeal paper book) filed by the office of SLAO, Ghaziabad, the aforementioned amount of compensation for the acquisition of the land is lying in deposit with it, I agree with Mr. Mittal that it would be beneficial to both the Bank and the borrowers if the said amount is kept in an interest-bearing account until the disposal of the OA by the DRT and its continued deposit with the SLAO will not be beneficial to any party.

In view of above, the appeal is disposed of with the direction to the SLAO, Ghaziabad to deposit the amount of compensation qua the aforesaid land of respondents Dr. Kewal Krishan Sood and Mrs. Neeta Sood with any nationalized Bank in the Fixed Deposit account earning the maximum return, until the O.A. is finally disposed of by the DRT. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per law and be also sent to the DRT concerned and the SLAO, Ghaziabad. The appellant to ensure the service of copy of this order upon the concerned SLAO.