DENA BANK A BODY ESTABLISHED Vs. SIDDHARTH PULSES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, petitioner bank challenges the judgment and order dtd. 11/1/2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as to the "D.R.A.T.") in Appeal Nos. 136 of 2017 and 107 of 2010 to the extent it sets aside paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the operative part of the judgment and order dtd. 20/4/2010 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as to the "D.R.T.") in Original Application No. 26 of 2008.

(2.) The dispute has arisen on account of competing claims of the petitioner bank and the respondent No. 4 bank over the goods belonging to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Both banks extended credit facilities to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against security of inter alia same stock and movable goods. The stock and the goods have been sold in pursuance of the permission granted by the D.R.T. and which bank is entitled to claim sale proceeds, is the issue which arose before the D.R.T. and the D. R. A. T. and which again arises for our consideration.

(3.) A brief factual narration as prologue to our judgment would be necessary. The petitioner bank had made available cash credit facility of Rs.4.00 crores to the respondent No. 1. Towards security, an agreement of hypothecation dtd. 5/12/2007 was executed in favour of the petitioner bank thereby hypothecating the stock consisting of Moong and Moong Dal (Pulses) as well as movable properties as more particularly detailed in the agreement. On 10/6/2008, the petitioner bank filed Original Application No. 26 of 2008 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before the D.R.T. Aurangabad for recovery of dues of Rs.4,07,42,396.49 paise.