KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD vs M S UTTAR PRADESH STATE CEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED on 12 April 2022

**JUDGMENT**

1. 1. This case has been heard on day to day basis from 24.08.2021 to 28.10.2021 and some clarification was sought on 10.02.2022 as per order & direction passed by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad passed in Writ - C. No. - 18484 of 2021 dated 12.08.2021.

2. 2. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant for challenging the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer in D.R.C. 12 of 2007, wherein Ld. Recovery Officer directed the Official Liquidator to furnish clarifications as to whether Rs.33,93,24,318/- received on 25.10.2007 by Bank from O.L. was under one time settlement, if not, what steps are being taken in the matter for recovery of remaining amount and Ld. Recovery Officer was pleased to decline the application seeking recovery and remittance of any amount lying attached a/c bearing no.10638482780 as detailed in order dated 31.07.2008 to the upper ceiling of Rs.275,78,03,938.61 as on 31.07.2020 with further interest upto the date of execution of order.

3. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that originally this Tribunal had decided the O.A. No.290/2001 on 06.12.2006 in favour of then O.A. Applicant (ICICI Bank thereafter ICICI Bank has assigned the debt to the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. in the year 2006). Further, earlier, this O.A. was filed by the ICICI Bank but during the pendency, the O.A. was assigned to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Recovery Certificate was issued for Rs.56,41,37,770/- with interest @12% half yearly in favour of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

1. 4. It is further submitted that after the decision of the O.A. the matter was litigated upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and on direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter was again came up before the Hon'ble DRAT, thereafter this Tribunal vide order dated 08.01.2019 decided the M.A. No.47/2008. Vide M.A. No.47/2008, the applicant bank seeks some clarification and correction and this M.A. was decided in the year 2019. In between 2008 to 2019, the matter went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to M.A. 47/2008.

2. 5. It is further submitted that to execute the Recovery Certificate, the matter was pending with the Recovery Officer and before the Recovery Officer, the applicant bank has filed the application to attach the account of respondent no.2 State of U.P. to affect the recovery.

3. 6. It is further submitted that on 10.07.2008, the Recovery Officer has passed the order to attach all the account of Respondent no.2 State of U.P. It is further submitted that on 31.07.2008 the earlier order of Ld. Recovery Officer dated 10.07.2008 was modified and 12 accounts of State of U.P. were ordered to be attached. The order was put for execution through Advocate Commissioner and on 25.09.2008 the attachment order were communicated and the State of U.P. appeared before the Ld. Recovery Officer on 25.09.2008.

4. 7. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 20.11.2020 is not only in gross violation of governing provisions of Income Tax Act Second Schedule, The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [Act 51 of 1993 – as amended], The Companies Act,

1956 but has also erred on facts including misinterpreting the various orders passed by this Tribunal & Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.

1. 8. It is further submitted that the order dated 20.11.2020 is ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to or inconsistent with the facts of the case and contrary to the facts before the Ld. Recovery Officer. Further, the Ld. Recovery Officer while passing the impugned order has gone beyond the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law. It is further submitted that while passing the order dated 20.11.2020, Ld. Recovery Officer was pleased to decline the application seeking recovery and remittance of any amount lying attached a/c bearing no.10638482780 as detailed in order dated 31.07.2008 to the upper ceiling of Rs.275,78,03,938.61 as on 31.07.2020 with further interest upto the date of execution of order.

2. 9. It is further submitted that Ld. Recovery Officer has erred in law by coming to the erroneous conclusion that since a sum of Rs.83,48,60,750.08 has already been released in favour of the appellant bank as such order dated 31.07.2008 has attained finality and the same is no longer under attachment. Further submitted that Ld. Recovery Officer has failed to appreciate that the a/c bearing no.10638482780 was attached and there exists no provision whereby the same can be treated to be automatically released from attachment without the satisfaction of recovery certificate, issued by this Tribunal and Ld. Recovery Officer has grossly failed to appreciate that vide order dated 31.07.2008, the a/c bearing no.10638482780 was attached as such it is absolutely wrong to interpret the order dated 31.07.2008 to mean that the same was attached for a specific sum only.

3. 10. It is further submitted that while passing the order dated 20.11.2020, Ld. Recovery Officer had misdirected itself by placing its reliance on the contents of letter / order issued to the Chief Treasury Officer to attach a sum of Rs.83,48,60,750.08 and it is a strange paradox although the appellant bank had made a categorical request seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner / Recovery Inspector for execution of attachment order dated 31.07.2008 but Ld. Recovery Officer has opted to ignore the order dated 31.07.2008 and has proceeded to decline the request on surmises based on its letter issued to the Chief Treasury Officer and letter issued to the Chief Treasury Officer cannot in any way supersede the order dated 31.07.2008 passed by Ld. Recovery Officer.

1. 11. It is further submitted that Ld. Recovery Officer has wrongly placed its reliance on judgment passed by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the matter of State of Nagaland Vs. UCO Bank, which is neither applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case nor the same was ever, pleaded/cited by the either of the parties to lis. Further, Ld. Recovery Officer has suo moto, opted to assume powers conferred to this Tribunal u/s 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [Act 51 of 1993 – as Amended].

2. 12. It is further submitted that Ld. Recovery Officer has further erred in facts and in law by self interpreting the order dated 15.02.2006, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Company Application No.4 of 1997. Further submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 11.10.2006 had confirmed the sale of assets of UPSCCL in favour of M/s Jaiprakash Associates for Rs.459 Crores and the sale proceed have been distributed between secured creditors and workmen on pro-rata basis u/s 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant bank has received its pro-rata dividend share of Rs.33,93,24,318/- from the Official Liquidator attached to Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 25.10.2007

though appellant had chosen to remain outside the liquidation proceedings as enumerated in its Claim Affidavit.

1. 13. It is further submitted that Ld. Recovery Officer erred in law by trying to treat distribution of dividend shared pursuant to pro-rata basis u/s 529A of the Companies Act as an settlement amount, it is specifically stated that at no point of time, any settlement was ever arrived at between the appellant and respondent no.2.

2. 14. It is further submitted that Ld. Recovery Officer is bent upon denying the fruits of the decree to the appellant which is amply clear from the fact that although in order dated 23.07.2020 Ld. Recovery Officer has recorded a categorical submission made by the Counsel for the Liquidator that he has nothing to file on behalf of the Official Liquidator, even then, while passing the order dated 20.11.2020, Ld. Recovery Officer has again directed the Official Liquidator to furnish clarification pertaining to receipt of its pro-rata share of Rs.33,93,24,318/- from the Official Liquidator attached to Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 25.10.2007.

3. 15. It is further submitted that it is a strange paradox that while passing order dated 12.02.2020 Ld. Recovery Officer on being satisfied with the submissions made by the appellant pertaining to receipt of its pro-rata share of Rs.33,93,24,318/- from the Official Liquidator passed an order for remittance of Rs.83,48,60,750.08 and now has passed a self contradictory order by raising query on the same issue and the findings recorded pertaining to receipt of its pro-rata share of Rs.33,93,24,318/- from the Official Liquidator in the impugned order dated 20.11.2020 is also against the settled proposition of law, which already has been cited before the Ld. Recovery Officer and Ld. Recovery Officer was pleased to take note of the same in its earlier orders dated 12.02.2020.

1. 16. It is further submitted that while passing the order dated 20.11.2020, Ld. Recovery Officer has not only dismissed the applications filed by the appellant bank but has also entered into misadventure of going beyond the decree passed by this Tribunal and assuming powers u/s 30 by modifying the effect and intentions of earlier orders dated 12.02.2020. Further submitted that Ld. Recovery Officer has also failed to record the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the applicant rather has gone beyond the pleadings available on record.

2. 17. It is further submitted that this Tribunal has very broadly and generally recorded the facts without going into any factual detail whatsoever. It is settled proposition of law that an executing court has jurisdiction only to execute the decree i.e. it has to enforce only the decretal liability and prayed to quash the order dated 20.11.2020 being against the settled principal of law.

3. 18. During the course of arguments on 24.08.2021, Ld. Counsel for the appellant bank submitted that the appellant bank has a grievance against respondent no.2 only and rest of the respondents are formal.

4. 19. In reply, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 argued at length and in support of his arguments, filed written arguments and submitted that the appellant bank has not disclosed the disallowance of interest of the secured creditors vide judgment dated 27.04.2007 and that order has not been challenged thus becomes final. However, Court partly allowed the appeals of all secured creditors who were allowed agreed rate of interest on compounded basis upto the date of winding up and the penal interest however was not allowed to be compounded.

5. 20. It is further submitted that interest was to be calculated only upto date of winding up & thereafter no further interest could be paid. Further submitted that the status of guarantors could not be changed by holding that the guarantor is also liable as on date of decree i.e. 06.12.2006. As the appellant has become a part of winding up proceedings and obtained a claim at pari passu basis after the decree of this Tribunal.

1. 21. It is further submitted that order of Misc. Application No.4/1997 dated 11.10.2007 is an order passed after decree of this Tribunal, against the Company and the Company is governed by Company Laws and the interest was applicable in the matter of Company as per Rule-156 and Rule-179 when principal has been absolved from the liability then the guarantor has also been absolved and relied upon para 10 and ordering portion of the judgment passed in O.A. No.291 of 2001 dated 06.12.2006 and further submitted that this Tribunal has rightly disposed of the O.A. against the defendant no.2 due to participation of the bank in winding up proceedings of the company and it was rightly held that disposed of ex parte against defendant no.2. However, vide order dated 08.01.2019, passed in M.A. No.47 of 2008, the respondent no.2 is also held liable to pay the claims of the bank and financial institutions jointly and severally with the respondent no.1.

2. 22. It is further submitted that in M.A. No.47 of 2008, the bank has failed to brought on record order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Misc. Company Application No.04 of 1997 which was an order of Company Court in the matter of orders on applications/objections and workmen to the Report No.248 of 2007 of the Official Liquidator dated 09.10.2007 for recalculated amount of admittance of claims of secured creditors in pursuance to judgment in Company Appeals dated 27.04.2007 and the order dated 28.09.2007.

3. 23. It is further submitted that order dated 11.10.2007 has paved a way for payment, settlement of dues due upon the company by the secured creditors, unsecured creditors and workmen &

employees and that order has never been brought on record by the appellant bank before this Tribunal.

1. 24. It is further submitted that it appears from the records that bank has not amended their claims before Ld. Recovery Officer in compliance of the orders of Hon'ble Higher Courts. Further submitted that keeping in view the position explained hereinabove, the Official Liquidator is directed to furnish clarification as to whether Rs.39,93,24,318/- received on 25.10.2007 by the bank from respondent no.1 was under one time settlement if not what steps are being taken in the matter for recovery of remaining amount and relief upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.2713 of 2009 dated 20.12.2011.

2. 25. It is further submitted that on 10.07.2008 and 31.07.2008, the Ld. Recovery Officer had attached illegally the accounts (given at page 10 of the written argument) of the respondent no.2 maintained at different branches of State Bank of India in Kanpur. Further submitted that appellant bank had concealed the material fact from the Ld. Recovery Officer regarding order of Hon'ble High Court for dismissal of their claim with respect to payment of further interest after date of winding up and that order has not been challenged by the bank, so the said order becomes final. On one hand the bank has agreed to accept the interest as per company law i.e. @4% up to the date of winding up. Thereafter no interest could be paid but on the other hand bank is claiming interest as per decree.

3. 26. It is further submitted that two rate of interests cannot be possible, one for principal debtor and other for guarantor. Therefore, the Ld. Recovery Officer had rightly ordered for modification, recalculation of the claim as per order of the Company Court in Misc. Application No.04 of 1997. Further submitted that bank had illegally taken the amount of Rs.83,48,60,750.08 on 23.07.2020.

1. 27. It is further submitted that Hon'ble High Court Gauhati's judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed in the case of State of Nagaland and Anr. Versus UCO Bank and others, it is held that Debt Recovery Officer of DRT cannot attach money deposited in consolidated fund of the contingency fund of the State. That no money could be expanded from consolidated fund or the contingency fund of the State except in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.

2. 28. It is further submitted that the State of U.P. had filed an Appeal against the order for release of the amount in favour of the bank to the tune of Rs.83,48,60,750/- which is wrongly released in favour of the bank after 13 years of the attachment order. Therefore, the Appeal filed by the bank against the order of RO dated 20.11.2020 in DRC No.12 of 2007 may be dismissed with exemplary cost.

**I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and also perused the case records.**

1. 29. On perusal of records it appears that O.A. No.290/2001 was decreed on 06.12.2006 in favour of the Kotak Manindra Bank Ltd. and Recovery Certificate was issued for Rs.56,41,37,770/- with interest @12% half yearly.

2. 30. It also appears that a Misc. Company Application No.4/1997 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has made the following observations in order dated 15.02.2006 which is reproduced as under:- *"In principle the banks and financial institution had agreed to one time settlement. The issue with regard to the distribution of the surplus amount will be taken and when such claims are made. The banks had agreed to the sale through the official liquidator and have been present*

*in the proceedings from the beginning without any objection. The issue of one time settlement as such need not detain the court at this stage is the highest bid is almost twice the amount which was offered in the year 2001. The present offer is likely to cover the entire dues of work man, and we'll also substantially cover the claims of the banks and financial institutions. It is thus confirm the reliefs and concessions are, & shall be integral part of the sale of assets of the company (In Liq.)."*

31. Thereafter, the Company Application No.4/1997 was disposed off by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 11.10.2007 by observing as under:- *"Objection No. 242222 of 2007 filed on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited.*

*1. Heard Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, the assignee of the ICICI Bank Ltd; Shri Ashok Mehta, appears for Official Liquidator and Shri Anil Mehrotra for State of U.P.*

*2. By this application, the applicant has prayed for setting aside report of the Official Liquidator qua Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and for a direction to the Official Liquidator to accept recovery certificate of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Allahabad as final claim. By the third prayer the applicant seeks directions to the Official Liquidator to disclose the methodology adopted while calculating the respective claim amounts and sharing of the dividends.*

*3. The company was wound up on 8.12.1999 on the recommendation of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The assets of the company (in liquidation) were advertised for sale by an 'Asset Sale Committee' after global tender on the basis of documents of sale prepared earlier by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. After three valuations and extensive bidding in which special appeals were filed, the details of which are given in the order dated 27.4.2007, the highest bid of M/s Jaiprakash Associate Ltd (JAL) of Rs. 459 crores was accepted on 31.1.2006. The last instalment was deposited by the highest bidder on 11.10.2006 within the extended time and the sale was confirmed in presence and with the consent of all the secured creditors and the workmen appearing through their Union leaders and representatives.*

*4. In this unique sale, the State Government agreed to provide extensive reliefs and concessions for those who will like to take the entire assets company (in liquidation) as a whole.*

*5. The Official Liquidator was directed to invite the claims even before confirmation of sale. The secured creditors; unsecured creditors and workmen (about 5900) submitted their 'Affidavits of Proofs'. The Court appointed a 'Liquidation Claims Committee' consisting of a retired District Judge; a Chartered Accountant and an Advocate of the Court with special staffs and office equipment. The Official Liquidator accepted the report of the 'Liquidation Claims Committee' and submitted his report. About 99 appeals were filed under Rule 164 of*

*Companies (Court) Rules 1959 against rejection and part rejection of the claims communicated to the creditors. The report was published to the workmen. All these appeals were heard and decided by order dated 27.4.2007. The Official Liquidator recalculated the claims in accordance with the judgment. The IDBI and State Bank of India thereafter made applications for correction of recalculation which was accepted and was duly carried out and that the Official Liquidator's Report No. 248 of 2007 with re-calculation of claims is now under consideration.*

6. *Shri Om Prakash Mishra submits that Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd as assignee of debt of ICICI Bank Ltd had submitted affidavit of proofs on 15.6.2006 for Rs. 46, 59, 51, 812.32 including 1st and 2nd facility agreement under the interest bearing account. The ICICI Bank Ltd pursued Original Application No. 291 of 2001 in Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and that on 6.12.2006 after the proofs of debts was submitted, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad decreed the claim along with the interest for a total amount of Rs. 56, 41, 37, 770.00 along with pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum with half yearly rest. This decree was enclosed with the appeal filed on 8.10.2007.*

7. *It is submitted that the Court did not take into consideration the decree which is binding upon the Official Liquidator as he was party to the proceedings. The Official Liquidator is bound by the decree and that he should have revised the affidavit of proofs of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd which is assignee of the debts of ICICI Bank Ltd. The Official Liquidator could not have reduced the rate of interest.*

8. *In the last recalculation with claims of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd are admitted to the extent of Rs. 4255.19, lacs including principal amount of Rs. 478.86 lacs and interest and penal interest of Rs. 3776.33 lacs. The Court has accepted the agreed interest upto the date of winding up. With this amount admitted for pari pasu dividend, the dividend of Kotak Mahindra Bank is worked out at Rs.1=0.7974340 i.e. Rs. 339324318.00.*

9. *There is no doubt that the Official Liquidator was a party in Debt Recovery Tribunal and that there is a decree against the company (in liquidation) as well as the State Government as guarantor of the loans. The Official Liquidator, however at the time of declaration is bound by the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and Companies (Court) Rules 1959. He would not award the interest at the rate of more than 4% after the date of winding up provided that the amount is available for awarding such interest. Further, the Official Liquidator has to adjust the priorities in accordance with the charges of the creditors and to declare the dividend along with workmen who are also overriding preferential claimants under Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956 and then declare pari pasu dividend.*

10. *In the present case, all the objections of the secured creditors with regard to interest were considered and decided in the judgment dated 27.4.2007. The applicants have not challenged the judgment. The Court partly allowed the appeals of all the secured creditors, who were allowed agreed rate of interest on compounded basis upto the date of winding up. The penal interest, however, was not allowed to be compounded. The interest was to be calculated only upto date of*

winding up and thereafter no further interest could be paid. The Debt Recovery Tribunal however has calculated the agreed rate of interest and penal interest on compounded basis upto 6.12.2006, resulting into difference' in the claim.

11. The calculation of the Official Liquidator is valid and is in accordance with the judgment dated 27.4.2007. It is fully explained and does not require any change or modification.

12. Shri Om Prakash Misra has relied upon judgments in Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank AIR 2000 SC 1535; and Indian Bank vs. Official Liquidator AIR 1998 SC 2111 (para 12) . In the judgment in Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank (supra) the Supreme Court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has an exclusive jurisdiction and that those standing outside the winding up proceedings may pursue their decrees for the recovery of their debts. It also held that the permission of the Court is not required under Section 446 of Companies Act, 1956 to file or to continue with the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In Indian Bank vs. Official Liquidator (supra) it was held that the priority of debt of a decree holder will not be lost on account of the fact that the charges are not registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Both these decisions do not help the applicant in support of their claim.

13. Before concluding it may be stated that it is a case of unique sale in which assets of the company (in liquidation) were sold along with reliefs and concessions. The secured creditors were party to the liquidation proceedings. They were members of the Asset Sale Committee and that the secured creditors were consulted at every stage of proceedings. In this unique sale, the question of recovery of remaining amounts from guarantees loses its significance. It is highly doubtful whether the secured creditors, who will be paid the amount much beyond and over and above the realisable value their charged assets, on account of reliefs and concessions included in the sale, can still claim remaining amount or invoke bank guarantees. The court however is not passing any final order or expressing any final opinion with regard to invocation of guarantees which have even otherwise not been produced before the Court.

14. The Official Liquidator has admitted agreed rate of interest under the agreement between the company (in liquidation) and ICICI Bank Ltd with regard to both the loans facility. The interest has been calculated upto the date of winding up of the company (in liquidation).

15. The prayers made by the applicant as such may not detain the court for any further adjudication. The application is accordingly rejected."

32. In pursuance of the above order dated 15.02.2006, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, an Official Liquidator was appointed who in turn appointed a Settlement Committee and on the basis of the Settlement Committee report, the Official Liquidator has put up the report before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. Considering the report, the Hon'ble High Court has passed the order on 27.04.2007, detailing the distributions of the money as per settlement and the order dated 27.04.2007, passed by the Hon'ble High Court has never been challenged before the higher forum as mentioned in the order dated 11.10.2007 of Hon'ble High Court, meaning thereby, the order dated 27.04.2007 got its finality.

33. Keeping in mind the order dated 27.04.2007 of Hon'ble High, a detailed order dated 27.05.2009 was also passed by this Tribunal in M.A. No.63 of 2008 and made following direction/observation:- *"The UP government had furnished the guarantee in 1983 to ICICI (now Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited) to the tune of Rs.5.00 crore. The total claim has inflated due to charging of interest over a long period. The borrow company was wound on 08.12.1999. During the course of hearing of Misc. Application No.04 of 1997 by order dated 27.04.2007, the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad has recorded that the settlement claims committee submitted its report (which is reflected in para 18 of the said order dated 27.04.2007). The said committee had allowed the secured creditors interest @11% from 1.1.1998 upto the date of winding up order and thereafter @4% upto 31.07.2006, as per Rule 156 & 179 of the Companies Court Rules 1957. A subsequent order dated 12.10.2007 (after disposal of O.A.) was passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Attention to para 62 para 15 may be drawn where rate of interest awarded by the court has been indicated. I am of the view that two sets of interest cannot be awarded one for the principal borrower and other for the guarantor. The top management of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited shall take into account this order of a superior court and amend their claims before the R.O., despite the certificate awarded in their favour. This is not an appellate court but having regard to the gravity of the case and to prevent excess recovery (if any) and multiplicity of proceedings, I have made the above observations".*

34. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it appears that appellant bank has failed to brought on record the order dated 11.10.2007, passed in Company Appeal No.4 of 1997, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad was fully agreed that the calculation of the Official Liquidator is valid and is in accordance with the order dated 27.4.2007 and it is fully explained and does not require any change or modification. As such the order of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 27.04.2007 has attained its finality and in the light of the orders of Hon'ble High Court passed in Company Appeal No.4/1997 and order dated 27.05.2009 of this Tribunal, the Ld. Recovery Officer has sought clarification from the Official Liquidator and passed impugned order. As such, I find no illegality in the order of Ld. Recovery Officer dated 20.11.2020, passed in DRC No.12 of 2007, wherein Ld. Recovery Officer had directed the Official Liquidator to furnish clarifications as to whether Rs.33,93,24,318/- received on 25.10.2007 by the Bank from O.L. was under one time settlement, if not, what steps are being taken in the matter for recovery of remaining amount and declining the application of appellant seeking recovery and remittance. Accordingly, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Recovery Officer dated 20.11.2020 and as such the Appeal No.04 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed.

O R D E R

The Appeal No.4/2020 filed by the appellant, is hereby dismissed accordingly.

A copy of this order be given to the parties.

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this the 12^th Day of April, 2022.

Dictated & Corrected by me

[R. M. Kushawaha] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

[R. M. Kushawaha] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

/ac//