KRUPANIDHI EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bank filed Original Application (OA) against the defendants and the OA was allowed and recovery certificate was also issued. The appellant is not party to the OA. The appellant filed IA -1/2001 for withdrawal of recovery certificate contending that an agreement of sale was entered into between this appellant i.e. M/s. Krupanidhi Educational Institution and the borrower the 1st defendant and in pursuance of the sale agreement, at the request of borrower, the appellant has paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the respondent Bank and the appellant is prepared to discharge the entire loan amount to the Bank and the title deeds deposited with the Bank may be returned to the appellant. The Presiding Officer, DRT, by order dated 31.1.2002 dismissed that petition holding that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to grant relief to the 3rd party who has no privity of contract against the applicant Bank. As against that order the appeal is preferred by the 3rd party Krupanidhi Educational Institution.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that an agreement of sale was entered into between the defendant Sri. Ramothar Kedia, and the appellant M/s. Krupanidhi Educational Trust and one Sri. Nellappa and by virtue of the sale agreement the appellant has paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the Bank for due discharge of the loan of the 1st defendant and the appellant is also having a Demand Draft for the balance of the amount due to the Bank and the Bank may be directed to receive the Demand Draft and hand over the title deeds to the appellant. In the agreement of sale it has been set out that the defendant borrowed loan from Bank of Baroda and he having defaulted in repayment to the Bank, the Bank had instituted recovery proceedings before the DRT and the DRT has issued a recovery certificate directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,13,00,000/ - and the defendant had agreed to sell the Schedule mentioned property to the appellant and the appellant is in complete possession of the Schedule property except some shops. With regard to the 3rd party mentioned in the agreement, the defendant has also entered into an agreement with the children of the 3rd party under an agreement of sale dated 3.11.1995 and has received Rs. 80,00,000/ - as advance. It is also stated in the agreement that the 3rd party has no objection for selling the Schedule property in favour of the appellant Krupanidhi Educational Trust, by the defendant. The terms and conditions set out in the agreement is that -

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that after this payment of Rs. 50 lakhs by the appellant institution to the Bank, there is a balance of Rs. 63 lakhs due to the Bank and the appellant is having the Demand Draft ready with him for payment to the Bank and even after paying the entire amount due to the Bank, there is a balance of Rs. 20 lakhs and the appellant is prepared to the balance amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to the borrower the 1st defendant and the Bank may be directed to hand over the title deeds to the appellant after the Bank receives the DD for Rs. 63 lakhs.