Ms SRM Steels Private Limited vs MS MEERA SHIP BREAKING CO P LTD on 15 January 2026

**JUDGMENT**

1. 1. The Applicants have filed the present Misc. Application u/s 19(25) of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) praying for necessary modification in the

Recovery Certificate dated 26.07.2005 in R.P.No.2055, for deletion of the immovable property being **Plot No.45-68-P, Survey No.68-P, Ruvapari Road, Vatva, Bhavnagar** as the said property wholly belongs and is owned by the Applicant No.1 Company herein and it was never mortgaged by the Applicant No.1 Company in favour of SBI, Bhavnagar nor original Respondent No.10 in O.A.No.123/2001 i.e., C.D.No.10 in R.P.No.2055 was never authorized by Applicant No.1 Company herein to mortgage the said immovable property in favour of anybody, much less State Bank of India, Bhavnagar.

1. 2. Respondent No.1-ARCIL has filed its reply Ex.R/18 and denied the statements and averments made by the Applicants in the Application. It has further contended that since this Tribunal has delivered final judgment in O.A.No.123/20011 on 27.02.2004, Applicants have to approach Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal if they are aggrieved by the said judgment. Accordingly, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Application. It is also contended that the property in question is eventually mortgaged in favour of SBI and the said mortgage is already upheld by this Tribunal. Since, the account in question is taken over by ARCIL, ARCIL is now entitled to proceed further in the matter to recover the certified dues in O.A.No.123/2001. The property in question is already attached by Recovery Officer vide order dated 06.01.2006 and the said order is already executed. In spite of this, no objections were filed by the present Applicants and they have filed the present Misc. Application with a view to delay recovery of certified dues. Therefore, the present Misc. Application may be dismissed with cost.

2. 3. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the documentary evidences placed on record. Over and above oral arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants has filed his Written Submissions vide Ex.A/19, whereas Ld.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has filed his Written Submissions vide Ex.R/18.

1. 4. From the pleadings, an undisputed fact emerges that O.A.No.123/2001 has already been finally decided and disposed by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 27.02.2004. The Applicants are seeking modification in the Recovery Certificate issued pursuant to the said final judgment passed by this Tribunal.

2. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been primarily concerned with maintaining the finality of judgments and preventing the reopening of case through Misc. Application. In this context a reference deserves to be made to the judgment of **Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) INSC 958 (decided on 09 December, 2024)**. The said judgment emphasizes the importance of finality of legal proceedings and sets clear guidelines for when a disposed of case can be revisited. The relevant observations and guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment read as under:

*16. In the recent past, a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed the following in "Jaipur Vidjut Vitran Nigam Ltd, and Others vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 313":-*

*"We felt it necessary to examine the question about maintainability of the present application as we are of the view that it was necessary to spell out the position of law as to when such post-disposal miscellaneous applications can be entertained after a matter is disposed of. This Court has become functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court on 31.08.2020 through a course beyond that specified in the statute. This is not an application for correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. Neither it is an application for*

*extension of time. A post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments. The factual background of this Application does not fit into that description."* *(Emphasis supplied)*

17. Thus, this Court made it abundantly clear that a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings would be maintainable only for the purpose of correcting any clerical or arithmetical error. The Court further clarified that a post-disposal application for modification or clarification of the order would lie only in rare cases where the order passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments.

18. The Registry shall not circulate any miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings unless and until there is a specific averment on oath that the filing of the miscellaneous application has been necessitated as the order passed in the main proceedings being executory in nature and have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments.

19. The Registry shall insist from every applicant who intends to file any miscellaneous application in a disposed of proceedings for such a declaration as above on solemn affirmation.

6. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal is of the opinion that Tribunal has become **functus officio** and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the aforesaid OA was disposed of by judgment. The present Misc. Application is not an application for correcting any clerical or arithmetical error neither it is an application for extension of time. A post-disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal cannot lie except in subsequent

events mentioned in the aforesaid guidelines. The present Misc. Application is not covered by any of the special eventualities enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the Appellants have not joined C.D.No.10- Shree Ajay Vadilal Mehta in the present C.M.A. Though the Appellants have alleged that said Shree Ajay Vadilal Mehta have committed breach of trust with the Appellants and he has fraudulently deposited original title deeds of properties in dispute with SBI, the Appellants have not produced anything on record to show that they have taken any action against the C.D.No.10 Shree Ajay Vadilal Mehta for alleged breach of trust or fraud. This itself is sufficient to prove that the Appellants and C.D.No.10 are in collusion with each other to frustrate recovery of certified dues. It further becomes clear that the property in question was validly mortgaged in favour of State Bank of India on 17/07/2000 by deposit of original title deeds and such original title deeds of the property in question are in power, possession and custody of Respondent No.1, thus, all the requirements of Section 58(f) of Transfer of Property Act have been complied with. At this stage it would also be pertinent to refer to a Resolution dated 03.06.1999 passed by Appellant No.1 Company, which is filed by Respondent No.1 along with Purshis Ex.R/7 on the record of Appeal No.06/2009, filed by the Applicants before this Tribunal. The said Resolution is reproduced herein below:

**"SRM Steel Pvt Ltd**

*New Bunder Road, Bhavnagar-364005*

*MFRS, OF M.S. & S.S. INGOTS*

*FAX-91-278-420959PHONE-91-278-411565*

*3rd June, 1999*

*CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY HELD ON 0204-1999 AT*

THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY AT 3.30 P.M. WHERE IS Meera Ship Breaking Company Pvt.Ltd. requested State Bank of India Diwanpara Road Branch, Bhanagar to grant credit facility for their business activity and offered the land of Plot No. 48 to 68p. of R.G.No. 60p, situated at Nr. Excel Industries, Bhavnagar belonging to our Company.

AND WHERE AS the said Bank has agreed to consider the request of Meera Shipbreaking Company Pvt. Ltd., it is requested to deposit title Deeds of the said property in the said Bank and to stand as Guarantor.

AND WHERE AS considering our relation with the said Borrower Company who has offered to pay Guarantee Fee Rs.25,000=00 per year to our Company as consideration for furnishing Guarantee and creating charge By way of equitable over companies above referred property by way of Equitable mortgage.

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY RESOLVED that the company will furnish the Guarantee to State Bank of India, Diwanpara Branch, Bhavnagar for the Purpose of advances of granted/to be granted and deposit the title Deeds, of the companies immovable property mentioned as above, by way of equitable mortgage to secure the said advances, and any one Director of the company is hereby authorised to execute, guarantee Deed and other required documents as also to deposit title deed by way of equitable mortgage with the said Bank for the purpose of advances Granted/ to be granted to Meera Shipbreaking Company Pvt.Ltd. And Commonseal of the company be affixed in presence of any one other Director/officer of the company.

For SRM Steel Pvt.Ltd.

Sd/-

Director"

1. 8. From the above Resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Directors of Appellant No.1 Company it becomes clear that there was an intention of Appellant No.1 Company to stand as guarantor for the credit facility granted by State Bank of India to Meera Ship Breaking Company Private Limited and

to deposit the title deeds of the Company's immovable property in question, with an intention to create equitable mortgage in favour of the State Bank of India, Bhavnagar.

9. In light of the aforesaid facts and documentary evidence on record in the case on hand, it would be proper to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of **K.J. Nathan V/s. S.V. Maruty Reddy and Others, AIR 1965 SC 430** wherein it has been held as under:

*"Under the Transfer of the Property Act, a mortgage by deposit of title deeds is one of the forms of mortgages whereunder there is a transfer of interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan. Therefore, such a mortgage of property takes effect against a mortgage deed subsequently executed and registered in respect of the same property under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. The three requisites of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds are, (i) debt, (ii) deposit of title deeds, and (iii) an intention that the deeds shall be security for the debt. Whether there is an intention that the deeds shall be security for the debt is a question of fact in each case."*

10. In light of the aforesaid legal position and in view of the provisions of Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the Applicants that no valid mortgage exists in favour of Respondent is not tenable.

11. It is further required to be noted that Ld. RO had passed an order for attachment of mortgaged properties on 06/01/2006 and the same was duly executed and no objections were filed by the Appellants. The Appellants have filed this C.M.A. at belated stage i.e., on 17^th October, 2008,

which clearly shows that the intention of the Appellants is to frustrate recovery of certified dues.

1. 12. Accordingly, this Tribunal does not find any justification for modifying the Recovery Certificate dated 26.07.2005 in R.P. No.2055, particularly for deletion of the immovable property in question.

2. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the present Misc. Application deserves to be dismissed with no order as to cost.

Ordered accordingly.

File be consigned to record.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**

Saloni