ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant under Section 20(1) of the RDDBFI Act read with Rule 18 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules seeking permission to file the appeal. The respondent Bank has opposed the application by filing reply to it.

(2.) THE submissions of Mr. Mudit Sharma appearing for the applicant are that the applicant being aggrieved by an order of the appointment of the Receiver for taking the possession/custody of the property bearing Plot No. 9, Sector -20, Part II, Dwarka, Now Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the property in question, has filed an appeal against the order dated 3.4.2012 of DRT -II, Delhi passed on I.A. No. 246/2012 filed in O.A. No. 7/2010; that respondent company had entered into a collaboration agreement with the applicant on 28.1.2008 for the development and construction of a commercial complex over that plot after obtaining a no -objection certificate (NOC) from respondent No. 1 Bank and the applicant paid a sum of Rs. 10 crores to them and came in possession over the property in question which remained with it for several years but the Receiver has dispossessed it on the strength of the order impugned; that the applicant was not made a party to the O.A. filed against the borrowers by the Bank but since it has a legal interest in the property in question and its rights have been adversely affected by the order impugned, it is an aggrieved person and has a right to file the appeal. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sharma has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Ors., : (1997) 4 SCC 452 as well as of the Gujarat High Court in Lalbhai Trading Company v. Union of India & Ors. : (2006) 1 GLR 497.

(3.) MR . Pallav Saxena, the Counsel for the borrowers, has contended that the question of the alleged title or interest of the applicant in the property in question had already been considered by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 448/2011 filed by the applicant against the dismissal order of its impleadment application and since the order dated 9.1.2012 of this Tribunal dismissing that appeal has become final, the applicant cannot be allowed to re -agitate the matter on the basis of the alleged collaboration agreement by permitting him to file the appeal and the alleged plea of the applicant qua its title/interest in the property in question is barred by the principles of res judicata. It was also contended by him that the principle of res judicata applies not only in respect of separate proceeding taut also at the subsequent stage of the same proceeding. Mr. Saxena has placed reliance upon the judgments in M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka & Ors., : (2011) 3 SCC 408, Barkat Ali & Anr. v. Badrinarain (dead) by LRs., : III (2008) CLT 248 (SC) : VI (2008) SLT 414 : (2008) 4 SCC 615 and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited & Ors., : I (2012) CLT 100 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 235 in support of his contentions.