J.S. INTERNATIONAL Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 is the borrower, who availed of loan from respondent No. 1 -Bank. The petitioner No. 1 failed to adhere to the financial discipline resulting in recovery proceedings by the bank under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.D.B.F.I. Act') both against petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, the owner of the mortgaged property, which was to secure the loan. In the proceedings, a compromise is stated to have been arrived at on 6.12.1996 in terms whereof an amount of Rs. 38,73,114.43 along with costs of proceedings and future interest from date of filing of application was agreed to be paid by the petitioners in terms of orders dated 10.12.1996 and a recovery certificate was accordingly issued. It is the say of respondent No. 1 that as per the compromise dated 6.12.1996, which culminated in the order dated 10.12.1996, the petitioners were not to raise any claims regarding the stocks taken into custody by the Receiver and were to further withdraw criminal cases filed against the officers of the bank. However, petitioners failed to do the needful resulting in execution proceedings being filed before the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in which the mortgaged property was auctioned. Respondents No. 4 and 5, arrayed before us, are the Auction Purchasers while respondent No. 6 is the Court Auctioneer. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which are formal parties.

(2.) THE objections filed by the mortgagor were dismissed by the Recovery officer on 15.4.1998 which order was assailed before the D.R.A.T., Mumbai by the petitioner No. 1 but was not assailed by the mortgagor of the property. It is during the pendency of the appeal that petitioner No. 1 is stated to have deposited some amount and undertook to deposit the balance amount which he failed to do, resulting in dismissal of the appeal on 16.9.1998.

(3.) IT is during the pendency of the petition that the petitioner is stated to have deposited an amount of Rs. 3,70,162/ - which included interest as well as litigation expenses/costs. On the last date of hearing, on 31.10.2013, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only issue which survived for consideration is the claim of the petitioners for refund of the amount paid by reason of the account of the petitioner being debited for legal fee and expenses paid by the respondent -bank which, according to him, was not even directly relatable to the case in hand. We have, thus, heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid limited issue raised before us.