STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Vs. S P SAVITHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order: As the issues involved in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

(2.) FOR the disposal of both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions, the following few facts are stated. The State Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to"the Bank") filed O. A. No. 1967/1998 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,29,517. 80 with interest and costs against defendants viz. , (1) Srinivasa Leathers, a partnership firm, 2) Managing Partner S. P. Thangaraj, 3) R. Venkataraman, a partner and 4) S. P. Savithri guarantor for the loan by depositing title deeds in respect of D schedule (hereinafter referred to " The Petitioner" ). The claim against the petitioner was laid on the ground that she had mortgaged her house property detailed in Schedule D in O. A. as a guarantor for the loan. All the defendants in the suit including the Petitioner appeared before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also filed their reply statements. It was the contention of the Petitioner before the DRT that as the guarantee was only upto 30. 7. 1996, she was not liable for any amount to the bank after 31. 7. 1996 and her deposit of title deeds cannot extend beyond 31. 7. 1997.

(3.) BY order dated 27. 9. 2002, the DRT allowed the application with a further direction for sale of mortgaged property. It must be mentioned at this stage that the 2nd defendant in O. A. by name S. P. Thangaraj, Managing Partner filed W. P. No. 20353/1998 and the same was dismissed on 3. 10. 2002. Consequently, a Recovery Certificate dated 23. 06. 2003 for a sum of Rs. 59 lakhs and odd with future interest and costs was also issued. On receipt of the said Recovery Certificate, the Petitioner by letter dated 15. 9. 2003, offered the bank to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs out of which Rs. 5 lakhs will be paid immediately and the remaining amount of Rs. 10 lakhs will be paid in a year. As the bank did not agree for the said offer, an order of attachment was made on 9. 12. 2003 by the Recovery Officer. The Petitioner filed M. A. No. 20/2004 before the DRT for recalling the recovery orders and the attachment warrant. She also filed M. A. No. 21/2004 for stay of sale. However, by order dated 9. 2. 2004 the DRT directed that the sale shall go on but the same shall be subject to the orders that may be passed in the above applications.