Aamod Manohar Datar vs Sumeet Machines Limited on 4 October 2023

O R D E R

DATED: 04.10.2023

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1963, praying therein to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Mumbai and allow the Application (Ex-181) filed by the Appellant.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant has performed all the duties and carried out obligations attached to receivership in respect of the secured assets however, the Ld. Recovery Officer did not consider the relevant factor and is influenced by the totally irrelevant consideration regarding status of the DRT Receiver. He submitted that the regulation does not make any distinction between the receiver appointed from the Panel of the Tribunal or the Bank Officer as DRT Receiver. He submitted that the Ld. RO has made distinction in panel receiver and DRT Receiver in the matter of remuneration which does not exist in the said Remuneration governing the appointment of DRT Receiver, thus, he submitted that the order passed by Ld. RO is liable to be set aside.

3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

4. Record reveals on 17.04.2014, the Ld. RO appointed receiver in Recovery Proceeding No.37 of 2013, for taking possession of the immovable/movable properties. After the appointment the Appellant herein as a Receiver, the Appellant herein took possession of movable and immovable properties as DRT Receiver in terms of order dated 17.04.2014 from the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay. Thereafter, the Appellant was appointed as security personnel to protect the subject assets. The movable property which was in custody of the Appellant was sold for Rs.19,70,000/- by e-auction on 14.08.2016 and the sale was concluded by issuance of sale certificate dated 16.09.2016 and the possession was handed over by the Appellant to the purchaser M/s Royal Star Trading Company. The immovable securities were put for auction for 4 times however, no bid was received. On each occasion the Appellant visited the mortgaged properties for inspection to the prospective purchasers as well as up-keep of securities. The Ld. RO issued a sale notice dated 26.06.2019 for e-auction on 26.07.2019 and accepted an offer of Rs.25,50,96,000/- submitted by Hitiksha Technocrates Pvt. Ltd. and the sale was concluded in its favour and as per the direction of the Ld. RO the Appellant handed over the possession of immovable securities vide panchnama and possession receipt both dated 31.08.2019.

5. According to the Appellant, since the Appellant performed his duty very diligently therefore, the Appellant is entitled for remuneration at the rate of 1% of the realization of the securities however, the Ld. RO rejected the Application for remuneration filed by the Appellant.

6. Ld. Recovery Officer has dismissed the Application filed by the Appellant herein on the ground that the CH Bank chooses not to appoint the empanelled DRT Receiver rather chose to appoint the Officer of the Bank, therefore, the CH Bank cannot considered the Appellant herein on equal footing of the empanelled DRT Receivers. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.09.2019 is reproduced herein below: “2. It is observed that as per the Notification dated 12.06.2013, Hon’ble Presiding Officer of DRT-1,

DRT-2 and DRT-3, Mumbai empanelled M/s Invent ARC Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Thakkar Auctioneer & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. as DRT Receivers. In the notification it was stated that the appointment as Receiver of any assignment given to them in that capacity in any case before the Tribunal shall subject to the specified terms and conditions, provisions of RDDBFI Act, the Rules made thereunder, provisions of Regulations to Practice, of DRT, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu as amended from time to time, usual conditions, including those in the notice inviting application for empanelment as Receiver and the order and directions of the Tribunal as may be passed/given from time to time and subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs.1.0 crore and Indemnity Bond in favour of the Tribunals.

3. I am of the view that when a conscious decision was taken by Hon’ble DRT to appoint aforesaid Receivers, therefore, Bank Officer should not be appointed as DRT receiver to take physical possession. Furthermore, in order to give impartial decisions, Bank/CHFI being a party to the proceedings should be treated at equal footing with the Defendant.

4. However, CH Bank chose not to appoint the empanelled DRT Receiver rather chose to appoint the Officer of the Bank. The basic motive would be save the cost. Therefore, Mr. Datar cannot be considered to be in the equal footing of the empanelled DRT Receivers. Hence, question of reimbursement of 1% of sale proceeds to Shri Datar does not arise..”

7. It is important to note here that the Appellant herein is the Vice President of the International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.4).

8. On perusal of the order dated 30.09.2019, it is clear that the Respondent No.4 choose not to appoint the empanelled DRT

Receiver appointed by DRTs, as per Notification dated 12.06.2013, rather than the Respondent No.4 chosen to appoint their own officer i.e. the Appellant herein as a Receiver. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Ld. Recovery Officer that Mr. Datar cannot be considered on equal footing as of the empanelled DRT Receivers.

9. In view of the above discussions, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties as well as the concerned Recovery Officer for information as per procedure. File be closed and consigned to record room. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Mumbai Place: Mumbai Dated: 04.10.2023