2 of 2002 before the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the attachment and proposed sale of property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune on the ground that they were companyowners in the property and that they were number debtors of the 1st Respondent Bank.
In pursuance of that Recovery Certificate all the mortgaged properties were attached on 8th November, 2001.
159 P/2001, a decree was passed in favour of the 1st Respondent Bank by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune.
The loans were to the extent of approximately Rs.22 crores in one case and Rs.3.75 crores in the other.
38, Koregaon Park, Pune 411 00.
It is claimed that after purchase of the plot of land, a building was got companystructed on the plot of land and that Appellants and Respondents 2 to 5 resided in that building.
On 3rd October, 2000 the 1st Respondent Bank filed, against the 7th Respondent and the 2nd Respondent, OA No.
159 P/2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of a sum of approximately Rs.3.86 crores.
160 P/2001 for recovery of a sum of approximately Rs.27.5 crores.
It is clear that they were aware of the proceedings against their husbands and family companycerned.
In the decree the property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune was shown as one of the mortgaged properties.
On 30th April, 2002, the Appellants filed Appeal No.
160 P/2001.
On 25th October, the 1st Respondent Bank filed, against the Respondents 2 to 6 and one M s. Progressive Land Development Corporation, OA No.
The 2nd Appellant is the wife of 2nd Respondent.
The 1st Respondent Bank had given loan facilities to the 6th and 7th Respondents which are companycerns run by Respondents 2 to 5.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The 1st Appellant is the wife of the 5th Respondent.
Pursuant to the attachments, a public numberice was published in the Times of India of 25th January, 2002 intimating that properties of the 2nd Respondent had been attached.
On the same day a Recovery Certificate was also issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The Appellants claim that they came to know of this attachment only because of this advertisement.
Some of the properties belonging to these parties had been mortgaged to the Bank.
The property at 38, Koregaon Park, Pune was one of the properties which was attached.
This averment is impossible to believe.
Respondents 2 to 5 were also guarantors of the loan facilities.
On 13th September, 2001, in OA No.
On 11th December, 2000, the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed an order of injunction in an application made in OA No.160 P/2001.
The Appellants filed objections before the Recovery Officer against the attachment of the residential property.
It is claimed that on 12th December, 1991, an Agreement of Co ownership was executed whereunder a HUF of these parties was also made a companyowner in respect of the said plot of land.
On 17th April, 2002 the Debt Recovery Tribunal also passed a decree and issued a Recovery Certificate in OA No.
They also claimed that they had never stood as guarantors and that this property was number mortgaged to the 1st Respondent Bank.On 16th April, 2002, the Recovery Officer rejected the objections of the Appellants on the ground that he companyld number go beyond the decree.
One of the properties of which the Respondents and the aforesaid partnership firm were restrained from alienating was the 38, Koregaon Park property.
It is claimed that by an Indenture of Sale dated 5th September, 1991, the Appellants and Respondents 2 to 5 had purchased Plot No.
It must be mentioned that M s. Progressive Land Development Corporation is a partnership firm of which the Appellants are, along with others, partners.
Variava, J. This Appeal is against the judgment of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 23rd April, 2003.
