MOHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Mohan Kumar, has filed this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the learned Member of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal upholding the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 23.04.2014.

(2.) The Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 23.04.2014 had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.37,49,983/- with the Debts Recovery Tribunal on or before 21.05.2014 failing which, the Interlocutary Application in I.A.No.1103 of 2010 seeking waiver of the Pre-Deposit shall stand automatically dismissed. The same could not be complied with by the petitioner in time, but however after mobilizing the funds by way of mortgaging the property of his wife, the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.37,49,983/- and thereafter applied to Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to consider the Appeal on merits. But the learned member of the Tribunal,on 14.03.2019 refused to pass any order stating that the remedy is elsewhere and no orders were required to be passed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay of 1390 days in complying with the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 23.04.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay was not willful on account of the fact that the petitioner was unable to sell the properties of his wife earlier and therefore as soon as the property of his wife was sold, he was able to mobilize the fund and thus got ready with the amount for complying with the Pre-Deposit order. He further submits that the petitioner attempted to thwart the Sales/auction by originally filing O.S.No.65 of 2006 and obtained an order of injunction, which was dismissed later on 13.03.2008. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner also filed A.S.No.55/2008. However, the bank proceeded to issue a Sale notice on 08.02.2010 in which the respondents 3 to 5 participated, they were petitioners tenants. The petitioner also had made it clear that he intended to protect the property which had been auctioned by the first respondent and despite the same, the respondents 3 to 5 knowing fully participated in the auction held on 10.03.2010 pursuant to which sale certificate was issued on 12.03.2010. He submits that the petitioner be given a fair chance as the petitioner's property has been fairly auctioned by the first respondent bank on 10.03.2010 and the sale certificates were issued on 12.03.2010 by showing undue alacrity.