SHANTI JAISWAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 10.12.2009 in Appeal No. 15 of 2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, the petitioners, the auction purchasers have approached this Court.

(2.) The creditorBank initially filed Mortgage Suit No. 21 of 1994 against M/s Auto Engineering through its sole proprietor Shri Jagdish Prasad Sahu and others in the Court of SubJudge, Ranchi. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna and reregistered as P.T. No. 138 of 1998. The creditor and other respondents did not appear before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna and an exparte order was passed in P.T. No. 138 of 1998. A certificate was drawn under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for Rs. 13,13,573.27/along with interest @ 18.75% and cost thereon.

(3.) A counteraffidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 has been filed stating that the respondentState Bank of India vide its letter dated 16.11.2005 made an offer of "one time settlement" for Rs. 9,95,767.93 and the said offer was accepted by the Certificate Debtor without any modification or variation vide letter dated 16.03.2006 along with payment of rupees 4.5 lakhs. Thereafter, with the permission of the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi the balance amount was paid and the compromise was completed but consequently, the learned Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi refused to accept the "one time settlement". It is stated that during the year, 1995/96 the Certificate Debtors had shifted to Raipur, Chattisgarh for business purpose and therefore, no notice issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna or Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi was ever served and the notice published in the newspaper at Ranchi also could not come to their notice. The agreement to sale entered into with Smt. Bina Singh was not executed with malafide intention. There is no bar against "one time settlement" in cases were certificate cases are pending. The creditorBank has not declared Certificate Debtor as wilfull defaulter. The "one time settlement" was entered into much prior to the auction sale and the auction purchaser had full knowledge of the settlement and thus, the auction purchaser has taken a calculated risk.