SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. GOVIND RAM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to a previous direction in this appeal, the United Bank of India is represented and the authorised officer in connection with the relevant account is present in Court.

(2.) The disputes are between the members of the Agarwal family. The Agarwal patriarch is the respondent no.1 who has been served but is not represented. The appellant is one of the sons of the patriarch and the second and third respondents are the two brothers of the appellant. The appellant claims that though a Mandeville Gardens property has been secured in favour of the United Bank of India for certain credit facilities availed in course of the family business, the value of the property is well in excess of the claim of the bank. The bank has issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002, but no steps have yet been taken under Section 13(4) thereof.

(3.) The disputes between the parties appear to be covered by an arbitration agreement. It is the appellant's case that the excess proceeds from the sale of the Mandeville Gardens property, which has been secured in favour of the bank, is to be distributed among the brothers and a large portion thereof is to come to the appellant.