Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.47 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Braj Bhushan Shukla vs Uco Bank And Others on 23 September, 2011
3. A perusal of the record shows that along with their written
statement, the defendants No. 1 to 4 have filed the certified
copy of order dated 24.06.2008 passed by Debt Recovery
Tribunal III in O.S No. 109 of 2006 titled as "UCO bank Vs.
Ankit Pharma" and S.A No. 06 of 2006 titled as "Brij Bhushan
Chhabra Vs. UCO Bank" vide which the sale of suit shop to
the defendant NO. 5 by the bank in auction conducted on
16.02.2006 was set aside and it was ordered that if the
defendants No. 1 to 4 herein would deposit the loan amount
on or before 31.12.2008 with the bank, the bank shall issue a
"No dues certificate" to them and shall also release the
original title deed relating to the mortgaged property to
them. Subsequently, the defendants No. 1 to 4 also placed on
record the copy of order dated 01.07.2010 passed by Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi whereby the appeal
preferred by the UCO Bank against the order dated
24.06.2008 was dismissed and the bank was directed to pay
back the money to the auction purchaser i.e the defendant
No. 5 herein within one month. Here, it is note worthy that
the notice of the above mentioned appeal was sent to the
3
defendant No. 5 as well but he did not appear before the
Appellate Tribunal. Apart from the above documents, the
defendants No. 1 to 4 have also produced on record the
copy of "No dues certificate" issued by UCO Bank on
12.07.2010, copy of order dated 27.10.2010 passed by Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 133/08 recording
the handing over of the original title deeds of suit shop by
the bank to the defendants No. 1 to 4 as well as the Award
dated 12.10.2010 passed by Ld. Arbitrator allowing the claim
of the defendants No. 1 to 4 for recovery of possession of suit
shop, arrears of rent and damages against the plaintiff
herein. Keeping in view the above documents, prima facie
the defendants No. 1 to 4 are the owner of the suit shop and
are thus entitled to the release of the keys thereof.
Accordingly, it is directed that the keys of the suit shop be
released to the defendants No. 1 to 4 or their counsel against
acknowledgment subject to furnishing of undertakings by
defendants No. 1 to 4 to the effect that if upon the
conclusion of trial, the defendant No. 5 is held to be entitled
to the possession of the suit shop, they shall compensate
him for the use and occupation of the suit shop in the sum as
determined by the court.
1