The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bank, as the dominus litis, has the right to implead a necessary and proper party for the recovery of its dues, especially in cases of alleged fraudulent transactions involving the transfer of funds meant for the bank.

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.05.2021, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereafter `DRAT') in Misc. Appeal No. 343/2019 (hereafter referred to as `the impugned order').

2. The learned DRAT, by its impugned order, had allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No. 4 (H.N. Singh) and has set aside the order dated 28.06.2019, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereafter `DRT').

3. The learned DRT, by its order dated 28.06.2019, had dismissed the application, being I.A. No. 777/2019, whereby H.N. Singh was seeking impleadment of the petitioner herein as a defendant in the suit, being O.A. No. 97/2005, filed by Respondent No. 1, Bank, for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs.2,61,46,022/- from Respondent No. 2, M/s Elegance Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter `M/s Elegance') and its guarantors, being, Poonam Dhingra, H.N. Singh and Prashant Dhingra (Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively) and others.

4. The learned DRAT, by the impugned order, has directed the impleadment of the petitioner as a party defendant.

Brief Facts

5. The Respondent No. 1, Bank, had extended financial facilities to M/s Elegance in the year 2003 and, Prashant Dhingra and Poonam Dhingra, being the Directors of M/s Elegance, had also given their personal guarantees for repayment of the dues. The facilities included banking credit facility and foreign bills discounting.

6. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 herein, were represented as buyers of the garments from M/s Elegance. The bills discounted, however, were not cleared and no repayment was made to the Bank which led to filing of the suit, being O.A. No. 97/2005 before the learned DRT.

7. I.A. Nos. 630/2019 and 631/2019 under Section 19(25), read with Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, were filed by the petitioner in O.A. No. 97/2005, seeking his impleadment and also release of property bearing no. D-4A/7, DLF-I, Gurugram, Haryana. It was claimed that the said property was purchased by the petitioner along with his wife, Poonam Dhingra, through a registered sale deed dated 30.04.2001. The property was attached by the orders passed by learned DRT in O.A. 97/2005. It was claimed that the petitioner is neither the borrower nor a guarantor or mortgager and the property ought not to be attached.

8. Another application, being I.A. No. 777/2019 Section 19(25), read with Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, was filed by H.N. Singh, seeking directions for impleadment of the petitioner as a party defendant and also for directions to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2.53 crores with the Bank. It was alleged that, pursuant to the bill discounting, an amount of Rs.2.53 crores, given by Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, was to be credited in the Bank's account.

9. It was claimed that the petitioner, along with others committed fraud and opened another account of the company, where H.N. Singh, despite being the Director, was not shown as signatory. The amount which was to go into Bank's credit on account of bills discounting was deposited in the said account and was siphoned off into the account of another firm, being Golden Harvest, of which the petitioner, is the proprietor.

10. Learned DRT, by its order dated 28.06.2019, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner as well as by H.N. Singh.

11. The appeal was filed by H.N. Singh, challenging the order dated 28.06.2019, before the learned DRAT. The learned DRAT allowed the appeal filed by H.N. Singh and ordered the petitioner to be impleaded as defendant in O.A. 97/2005, which led to filing of the present writ petition.

Arguments

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had, no relation, whatsoever, with the borrower company. She submits that the impleadment of the petitioner was sought belatedly, after fifteen years of filing of the suit by the Bank. She further submits that the Bank is the domin