Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd vs Punjab and Sindh Bank on 12 December 2025

**JUDGMENT**

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and is directed against the order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer in Recovery Proceedings No. 279/2006 arising out of O.A. No. 68/1997, whereby the objections filed by the Appellant Bank under T-36 were rejected and the sale of the property in question was confirmed.

2. In this case, the Respondent Bank had filed **OA No. 68/1997** before DRT for recovery of dues from **M/s Park Apparels and others**. After adjudication, the DRT issued a Recovery Certificate in favour of the Respondent Bank. Further the Recovery Officer in pursuant to the said Recovery Certificate initiated the Recovery Proceeding No. 279 of 2006 by issuing Demand Notice to M/s. Park Apparels and others.

3. The Appellant has further submitted that in view of the Public Notice published in the Newspaper dated 06-04-2009 in connection with the properties, appellant had filed the written objection T-36 before the Ld. Recovery officer and it has been submitted by the Appellant that in the year 1990 one Shree Construction, a partnership firm had applied for project finance with the Appellant Bank. The Appellant further submitted that the party had given written application and sought loan assistance of Rs. 13 lakhs. The Appellant submitted that after processing the said application, Appellant had sanctioned the loan of Rs. 9 lakhs and in view of the said loan, company has executed the following documents.

- I. Demand Promissory note of Rs.9,00,000/-dated 12.5.1990

- II. Letter of guarantee dated 12.5.1990.

- III. Letter of continuity guarantee dated 12.5.1990.

- VI. Letter signed by all the partners confirming their liability dated 12.5.1990.

4. The Appellant has further submitted that in addition to the above mentioned documents the said partnership firm had created security in favour of the Appellant Bank by depositing the original title deeds of the immovable properties which is situated at Rajkot District, sub District Rajkot favour in the City of Rajkot, survey No. 86 part and part of plot no. 64 which is bounded as under :- North : Land of Plot No: 66

South : 40ft. width road

East : Land of Survey No: 87

West : Government Land.

1. 5. The Appellant has further submitted that for creating the charge, partnership firm had executed following documents in favour of the appellant Bank.

1. 1. Copy of the equitable mortgage executed by M/s. Shree Construction Company

2. 2. Agreement dated 14-05-1990 executed by said M/s Shree Construction Company.

2. 6. The Appellant has further submitted that despite production of all mortgage documents and proof of creation of charge in 1990, the Ld. Recovery Officer rejected the objections by order dated 24.07.2009 without assigning cogent reasons and without adjudicating the Appellant's claim.

3. 7. The Appellant has challenged the order dated 24-07-2009 on the following grounds :

- • That the Appellant Bank being the charge holder of the said property has priority over all the creditors and is entitled to recover its outstanding amount and in spite of the said fact the objection of the Appellant were not considered and the same was disposed of without allowing the said objection.

- • That the Ld. Recovery Officer had not gone through the documents produced by the Appellant diligently and it is an admitted fact that the charge was created in favour of the Respondent bank in the year 1995 whereas the charge was created in favour of the Appellant way back in the year 1990 and this aspect was not considered by the Ld. Recovery Officer.

- • That the Ld. Recovery Officer has mainly considered the aspect of the matter that since the Original Application filed by Respondent has been allowed and therefore, it is not open for the Recovery Officer to go beyond the same and at the same time the Ld. Recovery Officer should have considered the charge and claim filed by the other parties who are not party to the original proceeding.

- • That the Recovery Officer acted arbitrarily and mechanically by rejecting the objections and issuing sale certificate even after court hours on 24-07-2009.

8. The Appellant has submitted and prayed that the present Appeal may be allowed and to set aside the impugned order dated 24-07-2009 passed in Recovery proceeding No: 279/2006 and grant interim protection to restrain the Respondent from appropriating the sale proceeds during the pendency of this Appeal.

9. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank has opposed the appeal mainly on technical grounds of maintainability and on merits, asserting that the Appellant has no right over the attached flats (3B & 6B of Shree Apartment) and the Recovery Officer acted lawfully and that the appeal is barred by limitation under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993.

10. He further submitted that the Respondent Bank filed **OA No. 68/1997** before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to recover dues from **M/s Park Apparels** and the OA was allowed and a Recovery Certificate was issued in favour of the Respondent Bank. It is further submitted that based on the Recovery Certificate, the Recovery Officer initiated **RP No. 279/2006**, issued demand notices, and **attached Flats 3B and 6B**

**of Shree Apartment**, belonging to the certificate debtors.

1. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the Appellant claims to have a prior charge over the same flats in view of a loan allegedly given to **M/s Shree Construction in the Year 1990** for Rs.13.00 Lakhs and that the Respondent Bank does not have any knowledge of that transaction and further Flat Nos: 3B and 6B is not related to that loan.

2. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has further submitted that the Respondent Bank has a valid and enforceable charge over Flat Nos: 3B and 6B because **M/s Shree Construction** (Partnership firm) had executed **Sale Deed No. 9759 (Flat 3B)** in favour of **Ramaben J. Patel** on 16.10.1993 and M/s Shree Construction (Partnership firm) had executed **Sale Deed No. 9760 (Flat 6B)** in favour of **Mohan Nanjibai Trambadia** on 16.10.1993 and the original Sale Deeds were lying with the Sub Registrar Office, Rajkot for assessment of valuation and for scrutiny of the Sale Deeds.

3. 13. It is further submitted that meanwhile **M/s Park Apparels** had taken loan/advance from the Respondent Bank and as a surety and guarantor and as a further collateral security for the principal amount, interest and other charge due thereon, Smt. Ramaben Jivrajbhai Patel have executed security documents of the title of the property as legal mortgage by depositing following title documents :

- • Copies of sale deeds

- • Original receipts

- • Index copies

- • Mortgage documents.

1. 14. It is further submitted that the original sale deeds were pending with the Sub-Registrar for valuation and the Respondent Bank subsequently made repeated attempts to obtain originals from the Sub-Registrar, but the documents remained pending for more than 10 years. Hence, the Respondent Bank claims that the Appellant Bank do not have first charge over the property. It is further submitted that the Recovery Officer cannot go beyond the Recovery Certificate, and therefore rightly rejected the appellant's objection.

2. 15. On these grounds, he has prayed that the present appeal be dismissed as not maintainable with cost.

3. 16. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the records of this Appeal and also the records of RP No: 279/2006 arising out of Original Application No: 68/1997 for deciding this appeal. In views of this Tribunal, one point of determination appears to be necessary to be dealt with and decided for just and proper adjudication of this Appeal :- **I. Whether Ld. Recovery Officer has got any power to go beyond the Recovery Certificate i.e. decree :**

It is a settled principle of law that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The judgement and Recovery Certificate passed in OA No: 68/1997 is a decree in the eyes of law and the Recovery Officer is the executing authority of the Tribunal . Whatever action he has taken in furtherance of the Recovery Certificate to recover the dues of the certified creditor, has been done to achieve the mandate of execution of the Recovery Certificate. The Appellant on the other hand has filed objection before the Recovery Officer that the property against which the judgement and Recovery Certificate has been issued by this Tribunal in OA No: 68/1997 has a primary charge of the Appellant and it has been submitted before the recovery Officer not to sale

the charged assets in impugned order. The Ld. Recovery Officer vide impugned order dated 24-07-2009 has rightly observed that he has no authority to go beyond the decree. This is the only, ground on the basis of which the impugned order against the Appellant has been passed and this Tribunal finds no illegality in this observation of the Ld. Recovery Officer, in this regard.

1. 17. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Appellant in this case appears to have not chosen the right course of challenging the judgement/Recovery Certificate passed in OA No: 68/1997 before appropriate forum of jurisdiction and their objection before the Recovery Officer was not maintainable under law. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the objection of the Appellant.

2. 18. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in the considered views of this Tribunal, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and the objection filed by the Appellant before the Ld. Recovery Officer was not maintainable under law and it was rightly rejected by impugned order. Accordingly following order is passed :

**ORDER**

1. 1. The Appeal No: 18/2009 is hereby rejected with no order as to cost.

2. 2. Interim protection, if any, shall also be deemed to be withdrawn with rejection of the Appeal.

3. 3. Let the file of the RP No: 279/2006 be returned back to the Ld. Recovery Officer with a copy of this judgement for the needful.

4. 4. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced in the Open Tribunal on **12^th December, 2025**

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

us