V.P. SHARMA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed against the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Tribunal below. The impugned order was passed on Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2014 filed by the appellant before the Tribunal below. Prayer in the application was to hold an inquiry against the concerned officials of the Bank who had furnished false information before the Tribunal below and for not obeying the orders of the Tribunal. The prayer for inquiry was made on the ground that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 20 lacs to the Bank in full and final settlement of the dues for which the Bank had also issued a no dues certificate in favour of the appellant. The Bank had also moved an application before the Tribunal below for releasing the title deed of the mortgaged property so that it could be handed over to the appellant, When, ultimately, the title deed was not handed over, this miscellaneous application was filed making a grievance that it was falsely stated in the application that the title deed was lying with the Tribunal and be returned to the Bank. As a matter of fact, the Bank had lost this title deed from its custody. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to conclude that the certified copy of the lease deed was in possession the applicant Bank as could be made out from the advertisement issued in 'The Statesman' newspaper dated 10.6.2004 stating that the original title deed had been lost from the Bank and general public had been warned not to deal with the said lease deed. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the view that no inquiry could be conducted under Section 340, Cr.P.C. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant Bank was negligent in not keeping the original record intact till it was handed over to the entitled person, and, accordingly, disposed of the application with a direction to the Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation along with certified copy of the lease deed. The Bank was also directed to file an affidavit that it or its any branch would not misuse the original lease deed in future from the date when the original title deeds were handed over by the defendants to the Bank. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) THIS appeal was disposed of on the basis of an agreement reached between the appellant and the respondent Syndicate Bank. On the basis of this agreement the order dated 6.12.2010 was passed by the tribunal and it is as under:

(3.) THE case still did not see its end. The Bank moved another application, this time seeking review of the order dated 6.12.2010 on a different ground. It was pleaded that Mr. B.S. Nagar appearing for the Bank was not authorized to make statement on behalf of the Bank. This was nothing but a twist given to already raised plea. Still, it was entertained. Earlier it was stated that Mr. B.S. Nagar was not competent to enter into a compromise but now the review was sought on the ground that the Bank had not authorized Mr. B.S. Nagar to enter into the compromise. This Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions, again dismissed the review application on 26.3.2012.