Abdul Gaffar Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs ICICI Bank on 3 January 2025

**JUDGMENT**

- 1. The above Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Third Party-Objectors, Mr. Abdul Gaffar Abdul Sattar Shaikh and others against the order dated 17/04/2024 passed by

Id. Recovery Officer-II, Shri Prakash Meena, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad **in Recovery Proceedings No.44/2019**, vide which objections filed by Appellants/Third Party-Objectors by way of I.A.No.505/2022 against the order of attachment qua the property being "All the Piece and Parcel of the Immovable Property situated at A/1, Momin Park, Nr. Sardar Patel Hospital, Nr. Railway Station, Ankleshwar-393002" (hereinafter referred to as "subject property"), were rejected and I.A.No.505/2022 was disposed of accordingly.

1. 2. It appears from the perusal of Memorandum of Appeal and documents filed along with it and original record of Recovery Proceedings No.44/2019, ICICI Bank Ltd. v/s Industrial Instruments Erectors & Anr., summoned from the office of Id. RO-II of this Tribunal, arising out of Recovery Certificate dated 29/06/2019 issued in O.A.No.1534/2018 by this Tribunal and that Id. RO-II vide his order dated 17/04/2024 passed in Recovery Proceedings No.44/2019, as above, dismissed objections filed by TPO vide I.A.No.505/2022.

2. 3. It further appears from the perusal of records of above Recovery Proceedings that by way of I.A.No.505/2022 in R.C.No.44/2019, the Appellants/ Third Parties raised objection to the effect that they have purchased the subject property from Mr. Mohammad Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi (CD No.2 in the Recovery Proceedings) and paid full and final consideration amount and thereafter Mr. Mohammad Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi, owner of the subject property, has executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of Appellants/ TPO on 06/01/2022 registered at 236 with office of Sub-Registrar, Ankleshwar. The Appellants/ TPO further contended that the Appellants were approached by Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi in the late 2021, for the sale of subject property of which the description is mentioned hereinabove. It was disclosed by Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi that he is the rightful Owner of the subject property.

3. 4. Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi had informed the Appellants that he along with one Mrs.

Rubina Arzoo Hashmi had obtained Loan Facilities from HDB Financial Services Ltd. and as a security for the Loan Facilities obtained by him a charge of Mortgage was created over the subject property in favour of HDB Financial Services Ltd. vide Mortgage Deed dated 25.07.2011. Thereafter, during the tenure of the Loan Facilities, HDB Financial Services Ltd. had assigned the Loan Facilities and the charge of Mortgage over the subject property in favour of Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (EARCL) vide Assignment Agreement dated 25.02.2020.

1. 5. Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi and one Mrs. Rubina Arzoo Hashmi had approached the Appellants for the purposes of selling the subject property so that out of the total sale consideration, Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi and one Mrs. Rubina Arzoo Hashmi would be in a position to settle the Loan Account maintained by EARCL. Pursuant to various discussions, deliberations and negotiations with Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi and one Mrs. Rubina Arzoo Hashmi, an amount to the tune of Rs.48,60,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) was discussed and agreed to be the total consideration amount for the transfer of the subject property in favour of the Appellants. As per the terms agreed by and between the parties, Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi and one Mrs. Rubina Arzoo Hashmi made necessary payments to EARCL for clearing the outstanding dues and further for release of the charge of Mortgage of EARCL over the subject property.

2. 6. Upon payment of the outstanding Loan Amount, EARCL issued a No-Due Certificate dated 15.11.2021 in favour of Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi and one Mrs. Rubina Arzoo Hashmi qua the Loan Facilities maintained by EARCL in their name. Further, EARCL also executed a Release Deed dated 20/12/2021 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-Ankleshwar at Sr.No.15657 in favour of Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi and Mrs. Rubina Arzoo Hashmi and thereby, released its charge of mortgage over the subject property. In consequence thereof, the subject property

was free of any charge, right or encumbrance of any third party.

1. 7. That as the parties were complying with the terms and conditions agreed for the sale and purchase of the subject property, the Appellants completed payments towards the full and final consideration amount till 04.01.2022 and in consequence thereof, Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi, the Owner of the subject property, executed a Sale Deed in favour of the Appellants on 06.01.2022, registered at No. 236, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ankleshwar. Since then till date, the Appellants are the rightful Owners and Bonafide Purchasers of the subject property. Subsequent to the execution of the afore-mentioned Registered Sale Deed dated 06.01.2022 in favour of the Appellants, the Appellants have registered their names with the Municipal Authorities and other such Govt. and Non-Govt. Departments/ Authorities as Owners and Occupiers of the subject property.

2. 8. In the Recovery Proceedings, it was the case of the Respondent No.1 Certificate Holder that the Respondent No.2-Original Certificate Debtors are the borrowers / guarantors who have defaulted in the Loan Facilities obtained from the Certificate Holder. On perusal of the Orders passed by this Ld. Recovery officer, more particularly Order dated 10.03.2022, it appears that the Respondent No. 1-Certificate Holder had filed an Application before the Ld. Recovery Officer for attachment of the alleged Personal assets of the Respondent No. 2-Original Certificate Debtor and by way of the said Order, the request of the Respondent No. 1-Original Certificate Holder was allowed and by virtue of the said Order, Ld. Recovery Officer issued notice under Section 25(a) of the Act, 1993 calling upon the Original Certificate Debtors herein to show cause as to why the Assets mentioned in the Notice should not be attached by this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention that the subject property was also one of the properties over which the Respondent No. 1- Original Certificate Holder sought for attachment and as the said request was not opposed and/or objected by the Original Certificate Debtors, the Ld. Recovery Officer vide Order dated 30.06.2022 issued Order of Attachment and Warrant of

Attachment in respect of the subject property as well. Not only that, as there were no objections / representations made on behalf of the Original Certificate Debtors before the Ld. Recovery Officer within reasonable time, the Ld. Recovery Officer issued Notice for Settling Terms of Proclamation of Sale dated 05.09.2022 in respect of the subject property as well.

1. 9. Upon filing the Objections Application by the present Appellants, Respondent No.1-Original Certificate Holder Bank filed an Affidavit in Reply dated 07/02/2024 before Id. RO. In the said Reply, the main bone of contention raised by the Respondent No.1-Certificate Holder was that vide Award dated 12/06/2019 passed in the Lok Adalat, the Original Certificate Debtor was allegedly restrained from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their mortgaged properties/ assets without first paying the claim of the Respondent No.1-Certificate Holder and therefore, by virtue of the said restraint, the transfer in favour of the Appellants herein is allegedly in complete violation of Award dated 12/06/2019 and thus, the Appellants cannot be termed as legal owners of the subject property.

2. 10. After hearing submissions of the parties and going through the record, Id. Recovery Officer—II passed impugned order dated 17/04/2024 as under:

*"I heard the submissions of the parties and gone through the record, I observed that the CD No.2 has transferred the property in question despite having knowledge about restrain order. Therefore, I agreed with the view of CH Bank. Hence, the objections filed by TPO are not allowed. Accordingly, I.A.No.505/2022 is hereby disposed off.*

*The CH Bank is hereby directed to carry out valuation report of the attached properties and file on or before next date without any failure.*

*The interim relief, if any, granted by this forum stand vacated forthwith.*

*The matter be listed on 09.05.2024 for further proceedings."*

1. 11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 17/04/2024, the above Appeal has been filed by the

Appellants/ Third Parties for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17/04/2024 passed by Id. RO-II in RC No.44/2019 and for a declaration that the Certificate Holder Bank cannot create any right and/ or interest over the subject property, more particularly for the purpose of making recovery of the amount due and outstanding from Certificate Debtors.

1. 12. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants/ Third Parties, while arguing on the Memo of Appeal, submitted as under:

1. a) That the Appellants are bona fide purchasers of the subject property, inasmuch as, the Appellants have purchased the subject property by paying adequate consideration to the Respondent No. 2 herein, without any knowledge of defect in title. Even otherwise, the Respondent No. 2 was the rightful owner of the subject property at the time when the subject property was sold to the Appellants herein and that, the contentions raised by the Respondent Bank/ Certificate Holder are absolutely misplaced, misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. However, without application of mind, the Ld. Recovery Officer has rejected the Objections raised by the Appellants herein and therefore, the Impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

1. b) That the Ld. Recovery Officer does not have the jurisdiction to set aside or cancel the Sale Deed dated 06.01.2022 executed in favour of the Appellants herein and therefore, the Ld. Recovery Officer does not have jurisdiction to seek for valuation report or for that matter, lay directions to take any coercive steps in relation to the subject property and therefore, the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

1. c) Without prejudice to the above grounds, It is the case of the Appellants that firstly, the terms of the Award passed in Lok Adalat scheduled on 12.06.2019 is not signed by either the Certificate Debtors or the Certificate Holder and therefore, the Award Dated 12.06.2019 passed in Lok Adalat is a non-executable Award. However, the Ld. Recovery officer has failed to appreciate such position of law and therefore, the Impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

d) That, even assuming, without admitting, that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 12.06.2019 was binding on the parties to the Original Application No. 1534 of 2018, the said Award did not merge with the Final Order / Judgment issuing Recovery Certificate, inasmuch as, in the Final Order / Judgment dated 29.06.2019, this Tribunal in its Original jurisdiction had categorically observed that.....However, in case of default bank will be able **to enforce the securities described in the Original Application and would be able to sell the hypothecated assets and mortgaged properties, if any.** Thus, from the literal interpretation of the observations made in the Final/Order Judgment dated 29.06.2019, it is palpably evident that this Tribunal in its judicial wisdom did not merge the Award passed in the Lok Adalat with the Final Order / Judgment dated 29.06.2019 and granted leave to the Certificate Holder Bank to enforce the securities, hypothecated assets and mortgaged properties only. However, the Id. Recovery officer has failed to appreciate such position of law and therefore, the Impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

e) That the Final Order / Judgment does not confirm and/or continue the restraint order passed vide Award dated 12.06.2019. Even otherwise, the Award dated 12.06.2019 was only a restraint Order and not an attachment Order. Additionally, the Award was not a Final Order / Judgment, but was an Interim Order which lost its existence after the Final Order / Judgment dated 29.06.2019 was passed by this Tribunal. It is reiterated that this Hon'ble Tribunal in its judicial wisdom did not continue the restrain Order against the Respondent Certificate Debtor in the Final Order / Judgment dated 29.06.2019 and therefore, the contentions raised by the Respondent No. 1 - Certificate Holder Bank in the subject matter Recovery Proceedings is absolutely misplaced, misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. However, the Ld. Recovery officer has failed to appreciate such position of law and therefore, the Impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

f) That, at the cost of reiteration, it is stated and submitted that the Appellants are concerned with the

Property situated at "**All the Piece and Parcel of the Immovable Property situated at A/1, Momin Park, Nr. Sardar Patel Hospital, Nr. Railway Station, Ankleshwar - 393002.**" That the subject property does not belong to the Certificate Debtor and therefore, the Ld. Recovery Officer did not have jurisdiction to take any recovery measures against the subject property herein. Therefore, the impugned Recovery Proceedings shall not be maintainable against the subject property.

g) That, upon payment of the outstanding loan amount, EARCL issued No Due Certificate dated 15/11/2021 in favour of Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi and one Mrs. Rubina Arzoo Hashmi and it also executed a Release Deed dated 20/12/2021 registered at Sr.No.15657 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ankleshwar and thereby released its charge of mortgage over the subject property. As such, the subject property was free of any charge, right or encumbrance of any third party. Therefore, Mr. Mohammed Arzoo Syed Abdul Sattar Hashmi, the owner of the subject property, executed sale deed in favour of the present Appellants on 06/01/2022 registered at No.236 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ankleshwar. Since then and till date, the Appellants herein are the rightful owners and bona fide purchasers of the subject property.

h) That the subject property had been transferred in the name of the Appellants before the Demand Notice dated 07.01.2022 issued by the Ld Recovery Officer in R.C. No. 44 of 2019 and much before the Notice seeking attachment dated 10.03.2022 and 30.06.2022. That, in consequence to the execution of the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Appellants, the Certificate Holder cannot have any right, remedy or interest in the subject property. Not only that, as stated above, the subject property is in the occupation and possession of the present Appellants.

i) That as the Appellants are the bonafide purchasers of the subject property and as the subject property is in the lawful occupation and possession of the Appellants, the subject property cannot be attached or enforced by the

Ld. Recovery officer for the recovery of the alleged dues of the Certificate Holder.

j) That the Appellants are not in any way connected with the Certificate Debtors or with the alleged outstanding dues of the Certificate Holder Bank.

k) That the proceedings initiated by the Ld. Recovery Officer in respect of the subject property, at the behest of the Certificate Holder, more particularly the proceedings in respect to attachment and Sale of the subject property, should be quashed and set aside.

l) That it is a fit case of misrepresentations on the part of the Certificate Holder and the Certificate Debtors and thus, all the actions and proceedings initiated at the behest of such misrepresentations should be quashed and set aside.

13. Per contra, Id. Counsel for the CH Bank submitted that the subject property was in the absolute ownership of CD No.2 and it was transferred by him in favour of the Appellants after issuance of Recovery Certificate in O.A.No.1534/2018. That, CD No.2 desired for settlement and requested this Tribunal to place O.A.No.1534/2018 before Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 12/06/2019. Accordingly, settlement was arrived at between the Certificate Debtors and the Certificate Holder Bank in Lok Adalat and Award dated 12/06/2019 was passed in the said Original Application. While drawing attention of this Tribunal to Para No.(I) of the said Award dated 12/06/2019, he submitted that the following direction was issued to the Certificate Debtors:

*"I. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their mortgaged and other properties/ assets without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank."*

14. He further submitted that in spite of the above injunction, the Certificate Debtors have transferred the subject property vide Registered Sale Deed on 06/01/2022. Hence, it clearly shows that the subject property was sold by the Certificate Debtors with the mala fide intention to

defeat the recovery of the Certificate Holder and that, the transfer of any property after issuance of legal proceedings and injunction order passed in favour of the Bank, cannot be considered as legal and valid transfer. Such transfer is a fraudulent transfer, in violation of the Award dated 12/06/2019 passed by this Tribunal and it does not create the right of ownership in favour of the Appellants/ Third Parties over the subject property. Therefore, the Certificate Holder has rightly got attached the subject property and the objections raised by the Third Parties cannot be taken into consideration.

1. 15. He further submitted that the subject property was released by EARCL from its charge in the year 2021 and EARCL had issued No Due Certificate on 15/11/2021. The Appellants have alleged that sale consideration paid by them was utilized by the Certificate Debtors for repayment of existing credit facilities availed from EARCL. However, the said contention is not valid as the transfer of the subject property was not made by EARCL, either under SARFAESI Act or any other law for the time being in force. In fact, the Certificate Debtors have *Suo Motu* fraudulently transferred the subject property, knowing very well that this Tribunal had already restrained them from transferring any properties, without first paying the claim of the Bank. The subject property is sold by the Certificate Debtors with a *mala fide* intention and after issuance of Recovery Certificate and the Appellants/ Third Parties are not the legal owners of the subject property as it was already attached by the Certificate Holder Bank. As such, the action of transferring the subject property to the Appellants/ Third Parties is done by the Certificate Debtors in the teeth of the order of injunction passed by this Tribunal is clearly illegal. In support of his submissions, Id. Counsel for the Respondent Bank relied on the following judgments;

- • Satyabrata Biswas and Ors. v/s Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 266

- • Surjit Singh and Ors. v/s Harbans Singh and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 50

Thus, Id. Counsel for the Respondent Bank prayed to pass appropriate orders for recovery of huge public money involved in the matter and for dismissal of above Appeal.

1. 16. Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 adopted and supported the arguments advanced by Id. Counsel for the Appellants and further vehemently submitted that the subject property ceased to be in the ownership of CD No.2 as the same was purchased by the present Appellants vide Registered Sale Deed dated 06/01/2022 and it was transferred in the name of the Appellants before issuance of Demand Notice on 07/01/2022 by Id. Recovery Officer in RC No.44/2019 and hence, the Certificate Holder has no right to attach the subject property.

2. 17. I have heard the arguments of Id. Counsel for the parties and perused the Memo of Appeal as also impugned order dated 17/04/2024 in light of the above arguments advanced by Id. Counsel for the parties before this Tribunal.

3. 18. It is clear from the Award dated 12/06/2019 passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.1534/2018, at page 167 of Appeal, that the following directions were issued to the Certificate Debtors in Para (I) & (J):

*"I. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their mortgaged and other properties/ assets without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank."*

*"J. In case of default reported by the Bank against the defendants, the Recovery Officer will proceed with to recover the amount as per the claim in O.A./R.C. by selling mortgaged properties/ hypothecated stocks and personal assets of defendants. However, any amount deposited will be adjusted towards the total dues."*

1. 19. Pursuant to the above Award, it appears that this Tribunal passed order dated 29/06/2019, at page 48 of Appeal, for issuance of Recovery Certificate with the following directions:

*"Received award from Lok Adalat Parties have compromised the matter in the Lok Adalat and award*

has been passed with the concurrence of both the parties. It has become a case of admission and claim of the bank as made in the Original Application stands proved. Let Recovery Certificate be issued against defendants jointly and severally for the amount claimed in the Original Application with interest as claimed in Original Application for pendentelite and future period along with costs and with clear stipulations that **if defendants pay the amount in terms of award of Lok Adalat, they would be discharged from the liability and bank would release the security. But in case of default, Ld. Recovery Officer will proceed with the recovery certificate to recover the amount as claimed in the Original Application** along with interest and charges and costs and any amount deposited by the defendants in compromise will be appropriated on reducing balance. However, in case of default bank will be able to enforce the securities described in the Original Application and would be able to sell the hypothecated assets and mortgaged properties, if any.

It will be the duty of the bank to report to Ld. Recovery Officer about the amount of default and if applicant approaches the Ld. Recovery Officer, the Ld. Recovery Officer will proceed to recover the amount as per claim made in the Original Application in accordance with law.

*Original application is accordingly disposed of."*

1. 20. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that while passing the above order dated 29/06/2019, this Tribunal has not merged Award dated 12/06/2019 passed in Lok Adalat and has specifically granted liberty to the Certificate Holder Bank to enforce the securities described in Original Application and to sell the hypothecated assets and mortgaged properties, if any. He further submitted that it becomes clear from the above order dated 29/06/2019 that the injunction issued vide Award dated 12/06/2019 restraining the Certificate Debtors from transferring their other properties/ assets was not continued by this Tribunal while passing the order for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

21. It appears from the pleadings and copy of Sale Deed dated 06/01/2022, at page 75 of Appeal, that the Certificate Debtors have transferred the subject property to the Appellants/ Third Parties after issuance of Recovery Certificate vide order dated 29/06/2019. Thus, the said transfer of the subject property is subsequent to issuance of Recovery Certificate. The question now arises is that whether such transfer is legal and valid?

22. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in Para 23 in **Satyabrata Biswas' case (Supra)**:

"23. Apart from the fact whether A.K. Ghosh had a legal authority to sublease or not it was not open to him to grant a sublease in violation of the order. It is no use contending as Mr Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents does, that there was a bar to such a sublease under the terms of the status quo order. It has the effect of violating the preservation of status of the property. This will all the more be so when this is done without the leave of the court to disturb the state of things as they then stood. It would amount to violation of the order. The principle contained in the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' has no application at all to the facts of this case when in violation of status quo order a sub-tenancy has been created. Equally, the contention that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without recourse to law is without merit, because the state of affairs in relation to property as on September 15, 1988 is what the court is concerned with. Such an order cannot be circumvented by parties with impunity and expect the court to confer its blessings. It does not matter that to the contempt proceedings Somani Builders was not a party. It cannot gain an advantage in derogation of the rights of the parties, who were litigating originally. If the right of subtenancy is recognised, how is status quo as of September 15, 1988 maintained? Hence, the grant of sublease is contrary to the order of status quo. Any act done in the teeth of the order of status quo is clearly illegal. All actions including the grant of sublease are clearly illegal."

23. It appears from perusal of order dated 29/06/2019 that, though the order of injunction issued vide Award dated 12/06/2019, restraining the Certificate Debtors from transferring or in any way dealing with their mortgage and other properties/ assets without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank, was specifically not continued by this Tribunal, but it was specifically not vacated also. It is clear from the perusal of order dated 29/06/2019 that it was passed on the basis of Award dated 12/06/2019 passed in Lok Adalat which was itself enforceable under law. It is clearly mentioned in order dated 29/06/2019 that if the defendants pay the amount in terms of Award of Lok Adalat, they would be discharged from the liability, but in case of default, the Recovery Officer may proceed with Recovery Certificate. The order dated 29/06/2019 passed by this Tribunal was a consequential order to the Award dated 12/06/2019 passed in Lok Adalat with the consent of parties. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the injunction issued vide Award dated 12/06/2019 by this Tribunal against the Certificate Debtors continued until the satisfaction of the claim of the Applicant Bank in O.A.No.1534/2018. The Certificate Debtors were well aware about the said injunction order. In spite of having knowledge of the said order and without paying and satisfying the outstanding claim of the Applicant Bank, the Certificate Debtors have transferred the subject property in favour of present Appellants/ Third Parties, in violation of the injunction order dated 12/06/2019 passed by this Tribunal. Such transfer is clearly illegal because the state of affairs in relation to property as on the date of passing Award in Lok Adalat on 12/06/2019 is what the Tribunal is concerned with. Such an order cannot be circumvented by parties and expect the Tribunal to confer its blessings and to validate the transfer. This is done by the Certificate Debtors without the leave of the Tribunal to disturb the state of things as they then stood.

24. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants/ Third Parties has further argued that Ld. Recovery Officer has no power to decide the alleged fraud. If the CH Bank alleges that the transaction between Appellants and Certificate Debtors is fraudulent, it has to approach Civil Court for adjudication of fraud and cancellation of Registered Sale Deed.

25. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in Para 4 of **Surjit Singh's Case (Supra)**:

*"4. As said before, the assignment is by means of a registered deed. The assignment had taken place after the passing of the preliminary decree in which Pritam Singh has been allotted 1/3rd share. His right to property to that extent stood established. A decree relating to immovable property worth more than hundred rupees, if being assigned, was required to be registered. That has instantly been done. It is per se property, for it relates to the immovable property involved in the suit. It clearly and squarely fell within the ambit of the restraint order. In sum, it did not make any appreciable difference whether property per se had been alienated or a decree pertaining to that property. In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy, When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes....."*

26. In view of the above observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the transfer of subject property by the Certificate Debtors in favour of the Appellants/ Third Parties, even by Registered Sale Deed dated 06/01/2022, is required to be treated as having not taken place at all because of the clear prohibition of this Tribunal to the Certificate Debtors from alienating or transferring in any manner the subject property until payment of the outstanding claim of the Applicant Bank in O.A.No.1534/2018.

27. In view of whatever has been discussed above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Id. Recovery Officer, while passing impugned order dated 17/04/2024, appears to have committed no illegality or irregularity or does not appear to have exceeded jurisdiction vested in him under

law and thus, impugned order dated 17/04/2024 passed by Id. Recovery Officer-II, Ahmedabad does not require any interference by this Tribunal and the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Order accordingly.

File be consigned to record.

Pronounced in the Open Court on 3^rd January, 2025.

**(ANIL KUMAR GUPTA) ||** **PRESIDING OFFICER I/c.** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD** **03/01/2025**

\*ykb\*