Uco Bank vs Central Bank Of India And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9180 Bom

                                                   1                           jg.w.p.3908.11.odt


                                THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3908 OF 2011

                 UCO Bank, a body corporate, 
                 Constituted under the provisions 
                 of Banking Companies (Acquisition 
                 And Transfer of Undertakings) Act 
                 No. V/1970, having its head office 
                 at Kolkata and branch at Mahajan 
                 Building, Sitabuldi, Nagpur-12                                    ... Petitioner

                              VERSUS

                 (1) Central Bank of India, a body corporate
                       constituted under the provisions of the 
                       Banking Companies (Acquisition and 
                       Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970
                       and having their head office at "Chandermukhi", 
                       Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 and having 
                       one of its branch office at Dhantoli Branch, 
                       opposite Dhantoli Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur. 

                 (2) Shikshak Sahakari Bank, Head Office,
                       Mahal, Nagpur. 

                 (3) M/s. Nitin Enterprises, Nagpur, 
Amended as
                       26, Khamla Road, Sawarkar Nagar
per order dtd.
 11-12-2012            Nagpur through its proprietor 
                       Nitin Wasudeo Gothe              

                 (4) A. Kumara Legal Consultants Pvt Ltd,
                       5, 9 & 10 Giristi Height, 2nd Floor, 
                       Kamptee Road, Sadar, Nagpur. 

                 (5) Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai,
                       5th floor, Scindia House, Ballard Estate, 
                       Fort, Mumbai 




                 ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:46:21 :::
                                                   2                                         jg.w.p.3908.11.odt


(6)  Debts Recovery Tribunal at Nagpur,
       2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, CGO complex, 
       Seminary Hills, Nagpur.                                      ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. N. Phadke, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri M. Anilkumar, Advocate for the respondent no. 4
None for other respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                                                M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

                                                   DATE    : 29/11/2017.

Oral Judgment                 (Per : R. K. Deshpande, J.)

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated

24-4-2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai

allowing Misc. Appeal No. 214/2009 filed by the Central Bank of India

and dismissing Review Application No. 8/2008 filed by the petitioner -

UCO Bank.

2. In paragraph no. 11 of the order impugned, Debt Recovery

Appellate Tribunal has held as under :

"11. Mr. Phadke's submission is that UCO Bank was not a party to O.A. No. 26/2004. The issue of genuineness of the mortgage with UCO Bank could not be decided by the R.O. and the Presiding Officer in R.P. No. 57/2005 arising out of

3 jg.w.p.3908.11.odt

O.A. No. 26/2004. This was the issue which could be raised in Appeal. The learned counsel has chosen to raise this point in Review Application whose scope is very limited. The Tribunal has erred in holding that ground nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the Appeal have not been considered. As discussed hereinabove, ground no. 3 has been considered, ground no. 5 is infructuous while ground no. 4 has no bearing on the point in as much as the R.P. could not be stayed during the pendency of the criminal proceeding. For these reasons, the Appeal succeeds and deserves to be allowed in the following manner."

3. Once the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal records the

finding that the issue of genuineness of the mortgage with UCO Bank

could not be decided by the R.O. and the Presiding Officer in R.P.

No. 57/2005 arising out of O.A. No.26/2004, the question of allowing

appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 does not at all arise. The Debt

Recovery Appellate Tribunal should have dismissed the appeal by

permitting the Debt Recovery Tribunal to proceed to decide Appeal

No. 3/2008 filed by the present petitioner. We therefore, need not go

on the merits of the matter but leave all these questions to be agitated

in Appeal No. 3/2008.

4 jg.w.p.3908.11.odt

4. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated

8-1-2010 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 214/2009 by the Debt Recovery

Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai is hereby quashed and set aside.

5. The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall proceed to decide

Appeal No. 3/2008 filed by the petitioner on its merits after hearing all

the parties concerned.

6. Rule is, therefore, made absolute. No order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                    JUDGE



wasnik