Smt. M. Kanthamma & Ors. v. State Bank Of India & Ors.

M.B Vishwanath, Chairperson:— This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants herein (defendants 5 to 8 in the Court below) challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad in IA-178/2000 in OA-765/1999 dated 3.8.2000

2. The appellants-defendants 5-8 filed IA-178/2000 before the DRT, Hyderabad, praying that property belonging to defendants 2 and 3 should be attached.

3. It bears repetition. Defendants 5-8 prayed that the immovable property of defendants 2 and 3 should be attached. This property, be it noted, has not been furnished as security to the Bank.

4. The Bank and the affected defendants have filed objections.

5. The learned Presiding Officer by the impugned order rejected IA-178/2000.

6. In this appeal the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer has been challenged.

7. It comes to this: The original application has been filed by the Bank against defendants 1-8. The defendants 5-8 prayed in the IA-178/2000 that the property belonging to defendants 2 and 3 should be attached. There is no provision under the Act, empowering the Court to attach property of some defendants at the instance of some other defendants. If such an order is passed, it will be opening the Pandora's box.

8. Suppose some 3rd party who is not a party to the original application comes before the Court and says that the property belongs to him and it cannot filed by the Bank, be attached, can the DRT go into that? Certainly not.

9. What Section 19(12) of the Act says is that the Tribunal may make an interim order against the defendant to debar him from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with any property and assets belonging to him without the prior permission of the Tribunal. This right is given to the Bank (applicant).

10. This provision cannot be made use of by some defendants against other defendants. Only creditor can get the property of defendants attached. The learned Counsel for the appellants highlighted the fact that the Bank had consented to attachment and that the Bank had no objection. The so-called consent given by the Bank is not absolute consent. It is a qualified consent.

11. The appellants-defendants have alleged collusion between Bank and defendants 2 and 3. The Bank has denied this allegation and that is why the Bank has stated that it has no objection to the attachment.

12. In view of the circumstances stated, the attachment prayed for by defendants cannot be granted.

13. The suit was filed in 1994 before the IInd Addl. Sub-Judge, Visakhapatnam for recovery of Rs. 31,41,508.20 P. (Rupees thirty-one lakh forty-one thousand five hundred and eight and paise twenty only). Later it came to be transferred to DRT, Bangalore and then to DRT, Hyderabad.

14. The learned Presiding Officer has observed that the intention of the appellants is to drag on the proceedings. Bearing in mind that the suit was filed in 1994, I agree with the learned Presiding Officer that the intention of appellants is to drag on the proceedings.

15. The order passed by the learned Presiding Officer is unexceptionable.

16. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The appellants shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Bank.

Appeal dismissed.