AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. D. Khare, Chairperson
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was deposited by the appellant with the respondent-Bank and the direction was issued that his OTS proposal be considered. It is further submitted that after ten months, the demand draft was returned back and in the meantime, the property in question was auctioned and sale d*eed was also executed in favour of the auction purchaser, which was not in the knowledge of the appellant. It is also submitted that an amendment application had been /moved, which was disallowed by the Tribunal below vide impugned order, by which right of the appellant has been prejudiced.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the amendments, which were being sought, were already in the knowledge of the appellant, therefore, such amendment is not permissible in the eye of law, therefore, it was rightly rejected by the Tribunal below.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he will file an application seeking amendment, which are absolutely necessary and were not in the knowledge of the appellant.
Be that as it may, if the appellant files an application for clarification of the same after serving copy of the same upon the respondents, the Tribunal below may consider and decide the same in accordance with law most expeditiously, preferably within 10 days.
In view of the above, the appeal is disposed off with no order as to costs.