SHALINI ASHA CHOPRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEY are heard. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 challenging the order passed by the DRT on 2nd April, 2012. By this order, the objection, which was raised by the appellants against the application for substitution of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been rejected. The relevant facts for the adjudication of the present Appeal are that the State Bank of India initially filed a Civil Suit for recovery of its dues, subsequently, the said Suit was transferred to the DRT and the same was allowed by an order dated 12th May, 2006 and, accordingly, the Recovery Certificate was issued for a sum of Rs. 1,41,74,528.37 together with cost and pendente lite and future interest @ 16.5% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the Suit i.e. 30th April, 1993 till full realization. The liability was joint and several. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the guarantors and the appellant No. 3 is the principal borrower.

(2.) THIS is to be seen that earlier Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was impleaded by an order dated 13 th March, 2007 and the said order was challenged before this Tribunal in an Appeal on the ground that the order of substitution has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, thereafter, the case was remanded back to the Tribunal for passing afresh order after hearing the parties. Now the Tribunal has passed afresh order.

(3.) IT was objected by the appellants on the ground that earlier when the application was moved by them that the State Bank of India has no right to execute the Recovery Certificate and only Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has right to execute the decree/Recovery Certificate, then it was rejected at the first point of time and thereafter, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has no right to apply for substitution under the Deed of Assignment.