Navninder Kaur & ANR v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal 1 Chandigarh & ORS

CWP-24834-2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-16502-CWP-2017 in/and CWP-24834-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 04, 2018 Navninder Kaur and another .....Petitioners

Versus

The Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the Bank.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

CM-16502-CWP-2017 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexure P-12 is taken on record.

CM stands disposed of.

CWP-24834-2017 The petitioners are legal heirs of late Darshan Singh, who was statedly a guarantor for the loan availed by respondent No.4 from respondent No.2-Punjab & Sind Bank. In the recovery suit filed by the Bank before DRT-I, Chandigarh, the petitioners were impleaded as respondents being legal representatives of deceased Darshan Singh. The other defendantMeenu 2018.04.16 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh respondents appears to have proceeded against ex parte. The Tribunal vide

CWP-24834-2017 (O&M) -2impugned order directed the petitioners to disclose particulars of their properties or assets "other than properties mortgaged with the Bank" alongwith details of their bank accounts. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. [2] We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the absence of any categorical finding that late Darshan Singh was a guarantor, it appears to us that the directions contained in the impugned order are uncalled for being premature. Still further, the Tribunal ought to have made efforts to identify the mortgaged or other assets of the principal-borrower, before going into details of the assets owned by the legal heirs of alleged guarantor. [3] For the reasons aforestated, the impugned order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Tribunal cannot sustain and the same is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed, i.e. 30.05.2018.

[4] Disposed of.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE April 04, 2018 ( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2018.04.16 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh