SUDHINDRA KU SAMAL Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitions seeks quashing of the notice dated 2.5.2008 (Annexure -3) and declaring initiation of the proceedings in O.A. No. 108 of 2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is typing error in the prayer and the petitioner is seeking quashing of Annexure -1, which has been issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack directing conditional attachment of the property and requiring the petitioner to furnish the security of Rs. 14,34,740/ - failing which the hypothecated and mortgaged property shall be attached.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were given a loan by opp. party no. 1 -Bank against the property, which was to be purchased from opp. party no. 3. According to the petitioners, the notice could not have been issued by the DRT as the loan had not been recalled by the Bank and the petitioners were ready to re -pay the loan.

(3.) ON 8.3.2001, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for State Bank of Hyderabad that in a connected matter C.B.I. inquiry was going on regarding fraudulent activities of the petitioners and their allies. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. filed a memo in W.P.(C) No. 8673 of 2008, which is also listed today for hearing and is being disposed of by a separate order, stating that Arun Kumar Swain -opp. party no. 3 with some other persons had played fraud with the Bank.