SURINDER SINGH SACHDEV Vs. CANARA BANK & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the writ petition is to a order dated March 23, 2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, allowing Appeal No.408/2012 which arose out of an order dated October 15, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II dismissing OA No.151/2008 filed by Canara Bank and as a consequence decreeing the claim of the bank as prayed for in OA No.151/2008 and simultaneously disposing of Appeal No. 407/2012, setting aside another order of even date passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II allowing SA No.23/2012 filed by the writ petitioner and remanding the matter back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide SA No.23/2012 afresh.

(2.) While dismissing OA No.151/2008 filed by Canara Bank and allowing SA No.23/2012 filed by the petitioner and the company and quashing the proceedings initiated by the bank under Section 13 of SRFAESI Act, by two separate orders, each dated October 15, 2012, the reasoning of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is that there was an accord between the borrower and the bank; the accord was as per a one time settlement and under the settlement the borrower i.e. the company, required to pay Rs.1.25 crores, had paid the same and therefore the mortgaged properties stood free from the lien as also the account maintained by the bank stood squared up.

(3.) The view taken by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is that there was no accord and there was no one time settlement.