CORPORATION BANK vs R S DISTRIBUTORS on 25 February 2019

1. Today the matter is listed for orders.

2. By way of the present MA, the applicant prayed to issue necessary and appropriate directions to the Ld. Recovery Officer in RC No.42/2017 to take the possession of the secured assets i.e. Ruby Hotel and sale the same to liquidate the mounting dues involved in the present case.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submitted that this Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2017 allowed the OA No.251/2014 and in terms of final order, three recovery certificates bearing RC No.41/2017, 42/2017 & 43/2017 is drawn and pending adjudication before the Ld. RO, DRT-I, Delhi. He submitted that in terms of directions passed by this Tribunal, the RC No.42/2017 was listed before Ld. RO on 28.02.2017 and Ld. RO vide its order dated 22.03.2017 issued the notice for appointment of receiver to take the possession of the mortgaged properties.

4. He also submitted that respondents filed a Misc Application No.65/2017 before this Tribunal for transfer of recovery certificate which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 03.06.2017 and the said order was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble DRAT, Delhi by way of Appeal No.312/2017 and Hon’ble DRAT vide order dated 29.08.2017 appointed Sh. Narender Singh, Advocate to take the possession of the first floor of the property No.1/8, situated at Kirti Enclave, Model Town, Ghaziabad, UP and directed the applicant bank to maintain status quo qua the Ruby Hotel property. Further, the Hon’ble DRAT vide its order dated 11.04.2018 hold that “considering the fact that the appellants have not complied with the deposit even the 25% amount and more time is being sought and also considering the fact that the respondents were directed to make the full pre-deposit of 50% debt in question and simultaneously it was also clarified that there is no stay of recovery proceedings and the Recovery Officer be informed accordingly. It is stated that consequent to the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by Hon’ble DRAT, Delhi the Ld. RO vide its order dated 03.08.2018 directed Ld. Receiver to take the possession of the Ruby Hotel Property.

5. It is stated that the respondents preferred the Writ Petition No.9282/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi against the order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the Hon’ble DRAT, New Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2018 and after dismissal of the Writ Petition, the respondents moved a Review Application before Ld. RO which was also disposed off vide order dated 12.09.2018 and directed the Local Police and respondents to co-operate with the Ld. Receiver to execute the order, but neither the Local Police nor respondents co- operated with Ld. Receiver thus, he submitted that despite the above narrated circumstances, Ld. RO vide its order dated 31.10.2018 instead of proceeding ahead directed the applicant bank to file the status of mortgaged property therefore, it is stated that the Ld. RO may be direct to take the possession of the secured assets i.e. Ruby Hotel and sale the same thus, the present MA has been preferred.

6. Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank and perused the record.

7. Record reveals that this Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2017 passed the final order and issued a recovery certificate of Rs.8,78,17,195/- alongwith interest @13.25% p.a. w.e.f. 01.06.2014 and directed the respondents to pay the amount within 30 days, in case they failed pay the amount within 30 days, the same may be recovered from the sale of mortgaged properties, hypothecated assets and other personal moveable and immoveable assets of the respondents however, despite specific direction of this Tribunal, Ld. Recovery Officer for last 2 years did not complete the execution of Recovery Certificate, therefore, Ld. Recovery Officer is hereby directed to expeditious the recovery proceeding and complete the same within 2 months and if execution proceeding is not complete for any reason, a report shall be submitted to this Tribunal as to for what reason the same was not completed.

8. So far as issue pertaining to the mortgage property is concerned, this Tribunal vide order dated 03.06.2017 in MA No.65/2017 already adjudicated that after the amendment in RDDB&FI Act, in 2016, the power of Ld. Recovery Officer for the purpose of execution of recovery certificate has been extended beyond the jurisdiction of concerned DRT.

9. With the above said direction, this MA stands disposed off.

10. File be closed and consigned to record room. Copy of this order be sent to concerned Ld. Recovery Officer of this Tribunal. Dasti (Dr. REKHA G. DHAKAR) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI