Written Objection on behalf of the Defendants in DRT

 

District: South 24-Parganas

 

Before The Learned Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal

15-N, Nellie Sengupta Sarani (Fourth Floor),

Kolkata – 700 087

 

Original Application 380 of 2009

 

Punjab National Bank, Keyatala Branch, Kolkata  ………………. Applicant

Versus

Santosh Sarkar & Another ……… Respondents

 

WRITTEN OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

 

1.                  That the petition under objection is baseless, vague, frivolous and not maintainable in the eye of law.

 

2.                  That the petition under objection is bad in form as well as in law and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

 

3.                  That save and except those are matters of record all other statements made in the application under objection are not correct and as such hereby denied and the applicant is put to strict proof thereof.

 

4.                  That the application under objection is not maintainable as the application is not properly registered and no Miscellaneous Application Number has been mentioned in the said application.

 

5.                  That before dealing with the statements made in the petition under objection parawise, the defendants beg to state the following facts for Your Honour’s Kind perusal: -

 

(i)                 that the application for attachment of the defendant’s property before Judgement is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as Section 19(13) of the said Act provides as follows: -

“(13)    (A) Where, at any  stage of the proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay or frustrate the execution of any order for the recovery of debt that may be passed against him,

(i)         is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or

(ii)        is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; or

(iii)    is likely to cause any damage or mischief to the property or affect its value by misuse or creating third party interest,

the Tribunal may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Tribunal, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the certificate for the recovery of debt, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security.

(B) Where the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security, or fails to furnish the security required, within the time fixed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal may order the attachment of the whole or such portion of the properties claimed by the applicant as the properties secured in his favour or otherwise owned by the defendant as appears sufficient to satisfy any certificate for the recovery of debt.”

 

(ii)               that the property mentioned in the Schedule of the present Original Application is already mortgaged with the applicant bank and the applcant’s prayer for attachment of the property is totally different from that mortgaged property and they have every opportunity to realise the amount from that property;

 

(iii)             that the present application is mala fide and without any cause of action as in the said application, there is no iota of evidence or averment that the defendants are about to dispose of the whole or any part of this property or about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the local limits of the jurisdiction  of The Tribunal or is likely to cause any change or mischief to the property or affect its value by misuse or creating third party interest

 

6.                  That the statements made in Paragraph 1 are mostly matters of record.

 

7.                  That the statements made in Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not correct and hence denied and disputed, particularly in view of the fact that the instant proceeding is non-est in the eye of law and the property mentioned in the copy of the said application is not the suit property against which there is any encumbrance fixed by the bank as no loan was taken in respect of the said property being Holding No. 382, Middle Road West, Natun Pally, Ghasiara, Ward No. 12, P. S. Sonarpur, Kolkata 700 150, District South 24-Parganas.

 

8.                  That the present application filed by the applicant bank is frivolous and an harassing one and as such liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.