Praveen Kumar Pankaj and Ors vs INDIAN BANK (ALLAHABAD BANK) on 28 January 2026

ORDER

1. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant alongwith Limitation Petition, against the order dated 04.07.2019, passed in R.P. No. 82/2000, by learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal, requesting to set /BD

DRT,PATNA Appeal 4 of 2019 IOI aside the impugned order. The Reply of the appeal has been filed by the respondent no. 1 & 3.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Jagatanand Sinha proprietor of J. J. Pharmaceutical works availed the Cash Credit facilities to the tune of Rs.4 lacs. In order to secure the loan facilities, the borrower has executed various loan documents including guarantee agreement by mortgaged his property with the bank. Due to default in repayment, the account was classified as NPA and the respondent bank filed a certificate case vide 32/96-97 which was later on transferred to this Tribunal and instituted as PT Case No. 117/1998 for further proceedings. The PT was allowed and recovery certificate was issued for Rs.11,62,203.62 with interest @ 12% p.a. until full and final realization of the claim. Accordingly, recovery proceedings were initiated vide RP 82/2000. Subsequently, the property was attached and auctioned on 30.06.2008 for Rs.8.80 lacs. Ld. The Recovery Officer confirmed the auction sale vide order dated 31.07.2008. Against the auction sale, the deceased borrower approached Hon'ble High Court by filing CWJC 11199/2008 against the auction sale which is still pending before Hon’ble High Court. During the pendency of recovery proceeding, it came to the notice of the Ld. Recovery Officer through Advocate Commissioner’s report that the borrower Jagatnand Sinha has died. Accordingly, notice was issued to legal heirs of the deceased for substitution. Thereafter, legal heirs of the deceased borrower appeared before Ld. Recovery Officer and filed its objection which was dismissed vide order 04.07.2019. Aggrieved by the order of 04.07.2019, present Appeal has been filed by the appellants alongwith Limitation Petition.

On the point of limitation it has been stated that delay in filing of present Appeal took place on account of communication .and between counsel and appellants has much as appellants could collect the copy of impugned order in the first week of August, 2019. The appellant has a good case as the property worth Rs.40 lacs has been sold only for Rs.8.80 lacs with the connivance of the bank.

4. On the point of merit it is submitted by the Id. Counsel of appellants that on receipt of notice dated 27.07.2018 issued by Ld. Recovery Officer, %\~

DRT,PATN A Appeal 4 of 2019 IOI the appellants filed its objection but the recovery officer without considering the same rejected the objection. The Recovery Officer has committed the errors almost at every stage of Recovery Proceedings. Without affording opportunity to the appellants, the impugned order has been passed which violates natural justice. The Certificate Holder Bank failed to produce documentary proof of the death of the deceased borrower. On receipt of notice dated 27.07.2018, the appellants rushed before Recovery Officer by submitting its objection where it was prayed for compromise/settlement of account, but Recovery Officer did not afford the opportunity to the appellants. The contents of notice dated 27.07.2018 states the provisions of Second Schedule to Income Tax 1961 but passed the impugned order in complete defiance of provision contained in Second Schedule to Income Tax Act 1961. The appellants hereof have not been substituted as per contents of order passed in RP 82/2000.

5. Ld. Counsel of the respondent bank submitted that the present Appeal filed against the order dated 04.07.2019 is not maintainable and also the CWJC No. 11199/2008 filed by deceased borrower is pending before Hon’ble High Court, Patna against the auction sale held on 30.06.2008. The auction purchaser has already deposited the entire sale proceeds. Accordingly, the sale has been confirmed. In spite of several notices issued by Ld. Recovery no objection was filed by the appellants at that point of time. Hence, the Sale Certificate becomes absolute. The sale was confirmed well before the death of the deceased borrower and once a sale is confirmed in the favour of the auction purchaser, the right and title over the mortgaged property of the certificate debtor and its legal heirs do not arise. Therefore, objection filed by legal heirs of deceased borrowers is not maintainable, accordingly dismissed by the Id. Recovery Officer.

Ld. Counsel of auction purchaser submitted that the present Appeal is barred by law of limitation. The appellant is indulged in forum swapping that he has been agitating the matter before Hon’ble High Court in CWJC No.11199/2008 wherein the auction purchaser was noticed and the auction purchaser has appeared. The appellant is parallel seeking relief from this Tribunal by filing a present Appeal. The auction -/PS

DRT,PATNA Appeal 4 of 2019 IOI purchaser was declared as highest bidder in the auction conducted on 30.06.2008 and even after issuance of sale certificate dated 31.07.2008, physical possession of the property has not been delivered even after an agonizing efflux of 16 years. Considered the submissions of parties and went through the record. The present Appeal has been filed against the order of Recovery Officer in Recovery Proceedings No.82 of 2000. The applicant is aggrieved by order dated 04.7.2019, passed in R.P. No. 82/2000. By the aforesaid orders, the objection filed on behalf of legal heirs of deceased was dismissed holding that the sale was confirmed well before the death of deceased borrower and once sale is confirmed in the name of auction purchaser, the auction purchaser title prevails on the purchased property. The ground of the appellant is that without affording opportunity to the appellants, the impugned order has been passed. No proof of death certificate has been filed by the appellants. Notice dated 27.07.2018 issued by Ld. Recovery Officer states the provisions of Second Schedule to Income Tax 1961 but passed the impugned order in complete defiance of provision contained in Second Schedule to Income Tax Act 1961

8.

10. It is not disputed that the deceased father of appellant Shri Jagatanand Sinha has filed CWJC-11199/2008 against the auction sale held on 30.06.2008 which is still pending before Hon’ble Patna High Court. The appellant has neither disclosed regarding pendency of above said Writ in its Appeal nor the present status rather suppressed the material fact however, in its rejoinder admitted that the abovesaid Writ is still pending. No specific error in the impugned order has been pointed out in its Appeal. Only a vague statement has been given that the Recovery Officer has committed the errors almost at every stage of Recovery Proceedings. Further, it has been alleged that the respondent bank did not produce the proof of death of the deceased borrower before Ld. Recovery Officer but the appellants in its entire Appeal has not denied the death of the deceased. Furthermore, the appellant in its Memo of Appeal mentioned the appellants are sons of Late Jagatanand Sinha. h / Jpb

DRT.PATN A Appeal 4 of 2019 IOI

11. In view of the above discussion there is no merit in this Appeal.

ORDER

The Appeal No.04 of 2019 filed against Order passed in R.P.No.82 of 2000 is hereby, dismissed with costs. A copy of this order be given to the parties as well as to Id. Recovery Officer of this Tribunal. Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of January, 2026. Dictated & corrected by me. [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna