STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. HARISH KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugns the order dated 13.12.2007 of the DRT, Jaipur whereby S.A. No. 29/2004 has been allowed and the appellant bank has been directed to restore back the possession of the property in question to the applicant/respondent with a cost of Rs.5,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant bank had sanctioned a credit facility to the respondent in September 1997 on execution of loan documents and creation of equitable mortgage of property bearing No. A -27, RIICO Housing Colony, Ambaji Industrial Area, Abu Road. When the respondent defaulted in making repayment of the loan, the appellant filed suit (No.22/2000) for the recovery of outstanding amount, which was decreed for a sum of Rs.4,26,493/ - by the Additional District Judge, Abu Road., However, a compromise was arrived at between the DH bank and the JD respondent for a sum of Rs.4.81 lacs towards full and final satisfaction of the decree, out of which the respondent had paid Rs.1 lac. Since the remaining amount of Rs. 3.81 lacs was not paid, the compromise was cancelled by the bank.

(3.) ON 7.1.2004, a compromise agreement was entered into between the respondent and Smt. Vandana whereby the agreement to sell the aforesaid property was cancelled and it was agreed that if any amount had been deposited by her in the loan account of the respondent, then she would have the right to recover the same from the respondent. Smt. Vandana, filing a copy of the compromise dated 7.1.2004 along with her letter dated 12.1.2004, informed the bank about the cancellation of the agreement of sale and asked the bank to transfer back the amount of Rs. 3.81 lacs from the respondent's account to her account. The appellant bank deposited the cheque of Rs. 5.19 lacs in her account and also debited Rs.3.81 lacs into the respondent's loan account. The bank thereafter issued a demand notice dated 13.1.2004 under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act) to the respondent calling upon him to pay Rs.5,33,831/ - along with interest. As the respondent did not make any payment, the bank issued a possession notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking the possession of the said property and also published it in the newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' (Pall edition) on 19.5.2004. Being aggrieved with the actions of the bank, the respondent filed S.A. NO.29/2004 before DRT, Jaipur for quashing the possession notice. The bank contested the S.A. but the learned Tribunal below has allowed it by the order impugned and set aside the possession notice and has imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/ - against the bank. Aggrieved by that order, the bank has preferred this appeal.