G.B. Gupta And Another vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 447 ALL

Allahabad High Court

G.B. Gupta And Another vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ... on 1 May, 2025

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69065
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65727 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- G.B. Gupta And Another
 
Respondent :- Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kushal Kant,Mushir Khan,Sanjay Kumar Gupta,Saurabh Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anadi Krishna Narayana,Mahesh Mehrotra,S.C.,Vikram D. Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
 

1. Petitioners before this Court are borrowers from Bank of Baroda. The loan taken by petitioners was not repaid, as such, the Bank had filed a suit for recovery of money. The suit was decreed on 08.08.1989.

2. According to petitioners' counsel, some compromise was entered between the petitioner and the Bank for the payment of decretal amount. The said compromise was not honoured by judgment debtor which had led to initiation of recovery proceedings. The mortgaged property was put to sale and auction sale was confirmed. The petitioner being aggrieved by issuance of recovery certificate had approached Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The application preferred by petitioner was rejected by Debts Recovery Tribunal against which a delayed appeal was preferred by petitioner before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal which has also been rejected.

3. I have heard counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record.

4. It is an admitted case that suit filed by Bank was decreed way back in the year 1989 and the petitioner had undertaken to repay the decretal amount but till date the said amount has not been paid. The recovery certificate was issued which was challenged before Debts Recovery Tribunal which after extensive consideration had rejected the Case No. 10 of 2013. The appellate Tribunal had found that appeal preferred was time barred and the same has been rejected.

5. No case for interference is made out.

6. The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

V.S.Singh