Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pari passu agreement in Uco Bank vs Assam Financial Corporation on 10 September, 2025Matching Fragments
4. Against the aforesaid order, the present respondent had preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 6/2010 before the DRT, Guwahati. The said appeal was however dismissed, vide order dated 09.01.2012. However, certain observations were made for sharing of the proceeds as per the Pari Passu Agreement. The said order dated 09.01.2012 was the subject matter of challenge by the present petitioner in an appeal preferred before the learned DRAT, Kolkata which was registered as Appeal no. 64/2012. However, the learned Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata vide order dated 12.12.2013 had dismissed the appeal whereafter the respondent had filed an application being P. No.74/14 in OA/39/2002 before the DRT for a Page No.# 4/11 direction to the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.99,55,613/- towards the sale proceeds of mortgaged property. The petitioner had filed its objection on 30.06.2014. The Recovery Officer - II, DRT, Guwahati vide order dated 28.08.2014 had dismissed the application. However, direction was given to the petitioner to deposit the excess amount out of the sale proceeds along with interest at the rate of FDR to a non-lien interest bearing account having interest at the rate of the FDR.
9. Per contra, Shri PK Kalita, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
- AFC has submitted that the facts projected by the petitioner are not wholly correct. He has submitted that the present respondent was only a proforma defendant in the suit and it is for the plaintiff to apply for a final decree as the payment was not done in terms of the preliminary decree. He has brought the attention of this Court to the Pari Passu Agreement, as per Page No.# 6/11 which the sharing pattern was 22::37.5 and the said agreement has to be taken into consideration in the impugned orders. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent on 04.01.2018, he has submitted that the issue has attained finality vide the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the DRAT, Kolkata in Appeal No. 64/2012 whereby the observations made by the DRT, Guwahati in its order dated 09.01.2012 were confirmed. He has submitted that after such dismissal, the respondent had filed an Petition No. 74/2014 in OA/39/2002 in which the petitioner Bank was directed to deposit the excess amount out of the sale proceeds with interest vide order dated 28.08.2014. The petitioner Bank had thereafter preferred an appeal being Appeal No.5/2014 under Section 30 (1) of the DRT Act which was also dismissed by the DRT vide order dated 04.07.2017 along with cost of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, no action was initiated by the petitioner so far as the aspect of complying with the said order but on 16.08.2017 had simply sought for time. It was under that context that on 15.09.2017, the DRT had passed the order for requiring the GM of the petitioner to appear before the Court.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent - AFC has submitted that the interest of his client is only to get its entitlement as per the Pari Passu Agreement and the directions for personal appearance had to be made by the learned DRT only because of the fact that the orders passed earlier were not complied with.
11. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.
12. From the materials placed on record, it transpires that the petitioner had instituted the Title Suit No.9/1992 for recovery and enforcement of the Page No.# 7/11 mortgage in which the present respondent was a proforma defendant. It is also not in dispute that so far as the suit for recovery is concerned, the same is preceded by a Pari Passu Agreement wherein there was a ratio of 22::37.50. The suit had culminated in passing of a preliminary decree and as the amount in question was not paid by the contesting defendants in the said suit, the petitioner had filed application for passing final decree.
13. This Court has also taken consideration the contention advanced by Shri Kalita, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that it is for the plaintiff to file application for passing final decree and the present respondent which was a proforma defendant could not have made such an application. This Court is also of the view that mere passing of final decree would not per se entitle only the present petitioner for the decretal amount and the same would have to be divided as per the Pari Passu Agreement which is on record.