ARCIL vs Dadra Nagar Haveli Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd on 18 August 2025

Exh-9

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD

PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY, PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II.**

**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 70 OF 2015**

**IN**

**S.A. No. 243 OF 2012**

**Date of Order:-18.08.2025**

The Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

...Applicant

**Versus**

Dadra Nagar Haveli Sahkari Khand Udyog Limited

...Respondent

**Appearance:**

Mr. K.N. Shah, Ld. Counsel for Applicant.

None for the Respondent.

1. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Misc. Application for amendment in the Recovery Certificate issued by this Tribunal on 23.12.2013.

2. 2. It is the case of the Applicant that the financial asset pertaining to the Respondent have been acquired by the Applicant from Dena Bank along with its underlying interest by Registered Assignment Agreement dated 18.03.2014. In view of the same, the Applicant – ARCIL is the Successor-In-Title of Dena Bank and is deemed to be "lender" u/s 5(2) of SARFAESI Act and all the rights of Dena Bank are now vested in ARCIL. In view of the aforesaid assignment, now ARCIL is become entitled to continue and proceeded with the recovery proceedings as per Section 5(4) of SARFAESI Act.

3. 3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, though repeatedly called out, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, it appears from the record that the Respondent filed its Affidavit-in-Reply to the present application vide Ex.R/09 and has contested the statements and averments made in the present Misc. Application. The Respondent has contended that Ex-parte judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 in OA No.243 of 2012 came to be passed as the present Applicant had not disclosed correct address of communication to the Respondent. The summons issue by this Tribunal was not served to the Respondent nor the Respondent had an opportunity to represent and defend the OA filed by Dena Bank. The Respondent Bank has filed RA No.01 of 2014 for recalling and review of the aforesaid judgment and order passed in OA No.243 of 2012, which is pending. The Applicant - ARCIL has suppressed the said fact in the present Misc. Application. As such, judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 cannot be considered as final at this stage and in these ^L circumstances, there is no question to make such application to modify the certificate. The Respondent has further contended that Section 26 of RBD Act contemplates correction in the Recovery Certificate qua the clerical or arithmetical mistake. However, the prayer sought in the present application seeks to change the nature of proceedings. Accordingly, the cause shown and relief sought in the application do not fall within the scope of Section 26 of the RDB Act. The present application suffers from delay and laches and the Applicant is attempting to take disadvantage from the situation. Hence, the present application deserves to be dismiss.

1. 4. On perusal of the Registered Assignment Agreement dated 18.03.2014, filed by the Applicant at pg.23-50 with Memo of Misc. Application, it appears that the financial asset pertaining to the Respondent has been acquired by the Applicant from Dena Bank along with its underlying interest. Therefore all the rights of Dena Bank are now vested in Applicant -ARCIL u/s 5(2) of SARFAESI Act. As such, Applicant - ARCIL has become entitled to continue and proceed with the recovery proceedings as per provisions of Section 5(4) of SARFAESI Act. By way of proposed amendment, the Applicant seeks substitution of its name as well as to at a paragraph containing fact of assignment in the Recovery Certificate. Hence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and is not likely to change the nature or character of recovery proceedings pending against the Respondent.

1. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the present Misc. Application for amendment in the Recovery Certificate deserves to be allowed. Hence the following order is passed: