Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt Ltd vs Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd on 2 June 2026

1. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL) having their office at 10th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 through its Chief Manager Mr. Ashish Shahi

2. Omkara Assets Reconsturction Private Limited having their office at 47th Floor, Kohinoor Square, N C Kelkar Marg R G Gadkar Chowk, Shivaji Park, Mumbai 400028

3. Daewoo Motors India Ltd. (in liquidation), through the Official Liquidator attached to the Hon’ble Delhi Hihg Court, having his office at 8th Floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 11003

…Respondents

APPEARANCES For the Appellant : Mr Rajesh Nagori and Ms Sanjana Ghogare – Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Mr Bhalchandra Palav - Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr Akbar Rizvi i/b M/s. AKS Legal Consultants, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms Barsha Parulekar – Advocate

The Appellant preferred the present Appeal under Section of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 mainly to set aside the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer-2, DRT-II, Mumbai in TRP No.02 of 2023 arising out of O.A. No.162 of 2002.

Facts in Brief

In the said recovery proceeding, the mortgaged property situated at Surajpur Industrial Area, Noida Dadri Road, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. has been auctioned. The auction sale has been finalised in favour of the auction purchaser i.e. M/s Shakuntalam Landcraft Private Limited (Appellant herein).

The perusal of the record reveals that the auction sale stood confirmed, Sale Certificate was also issued in favour of the Appellant i.e. Auction Purchaser (M/s Shakuntalam Landcraft Private Limited) and the possession was directed to be handed over subject to the outcome of the Appeals pending before the Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai.

On 09.05.2024, Miscellaneous Application (Exhibit-882) was filed before the Ld. Recovery Officer seeking appropriation and distribution of sale proceeds in favour of Respondent No.1 i.e. ARCIL and Respondent No.2 i.e. SASF (now substituted by Omkara ARC) towards satisfaction of Recovery Certificate.

However, the Ld. Recovery Officer, by orders dated 06.06.2024 and 19.06.2024, deferred consideration of Exhibit-882 by referring to pendency of proceedings before the Hon’ble DRAT and other connected proceedings. Further, along with protracting the adjudication on Exhibit-882, the Ld. Recovery Officer in his Order dated 19.06.2024 has made observations on the conduct of the Advocates and has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000/- thereafter. Aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal has been preferred.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant, M/s Shakuntalam Landcraft Private Limited: Ld. Counsel for the Appellant i.e. Auction Purchaser submitted that the auction sale has already attained finality. It is submitted that the Appellant was declared as the successful auction purchaser and the entire sale consideration has been deposited, the sale stood confirmed, and Sale Certificate has been issued in favour of the Appellant i.e M/s Shakuntalam Landcraft Private Limited.

It is further submitted that vide order dated 17.05.2024, this Tribunal directed the Ld. Recovery Officer to dispose of Exhibit-885 and to hand over possession of the subject property along with original title deeds to the Appellant. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.06.2024, this Tribunal again directed disposal of Exh-882 and Exh-885 within one week. However, instead of complying with the said directions, the Ld. Recovery Officer passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2024.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Ld. Recovery Officer, later on, in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal handed over the possession of the subject mortgaged property. However, till date the original title documents have not been handed over to the Appellant even when there is no objection on the part of the Respondent No.1 i.e. ARCIL, having possession of the original documents.

Ld. Counsel submitted that the observations made by the Ld. Recovery Officer against the advocates and imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- thereafter were wholly unnecessary for adjudication of the applications pending before him. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 be set aside.

Ld. Counsel submitted that vide impugned order, the concerned Ld. Recovery Officer had levied personal accusation on the advocates/parties and levied cost of Rs.50,000/- each on the auction purchaser, ARCIL and SASF (now, Omkara ARC) to be paid to Army Welfare Fund. However, by an order dated 23.07.2024 passed by this Tribunal in the present Appeal, recovery of aforesaid cost of Rs.50,000/- was already stayed till further order.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents: Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 submitted that the auction proceedings have already culminated and the applications pending before the Ld. Recovery Officer ought to be dealt with in accordance with the directions previously issued by the higher forums.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties submitted that no adverse remarks had been made by them against the Ld. Recovery Officer and therefore, no further affidavit or clarification in that regard was necessary.

Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties, considered the arguments and perused the record available.

The present Appeal has been filed by the Auction Purchaser i.e. M/s Shakuntalam Landcraft Private Limited challenging the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer in respect of Exhibits 885, 887 and 888. The grievance of the Appellant is substantially directed against the non-compliance by the Ld. Recovery Officer to proceed in accordance with the directions issued by this Tribunal vide orders dated 17.05.2024 and 12.06.2024, as well as against the observations made by the Ld. Recovery Officer on the conduct of the advocates and imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- thereafter.

The record reveals that vide order dated 17.05.2024, this Tribunal directed the Ld. Recovery Officer to dispose of Exhibit-885 and further directed for handing over of possession of the subject property and original title deeds to the Auction Purchaser within the stipulated period. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.06.2024, this Tribunal quashed and set aside the orders dated 25.04.2024 and 29.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer and further directed disposal of Exhibits 882 and 885 within one week. However, till today the order of this Tribunal is partly executed only regarding handing over of possession of the mortgaged property and the original title documents are yet to be handed over to the Appellant i.e. Auction Purchaser.

During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties categorically submitted before this Tribunal that no adverse remarks were ever made by them against the Ld. Recovery Officer and therefore, after their submission in open Tribunal there is no further need to file affidavit in this regard.

It is pertinent to note that this Tribunal has separately passed a detailed order in Appeal No.05 of arising out of the same recovery proceedings and concerning the same order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer. By order passed in Appeal No.05 of 2024, this Tribunal has already quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 and directed the Ld. Recovery Officer to proceed in accordance with the directions contained in the orders dated 17.05.2024 and 12.06.2024 within a period of one week from receipt of that order.

In view of the aforesaid, the principal grievance raised in the present Appeal no longer survives for independent consideration. The order dated 19.06.2024, which forms the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal, has already been set aside by this Tribunal in Appeal No.05 of

2024. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by undertaking a fresh examination of the validity of the same order in the present Appeal in hand.

However, considering that the present Appeal has been filed by the Auction Purchaser and concerns the same order and recovery proceedings, it is clarified that the findings, observations and directions recorded by this Tribunal in Appeal No.05 of 2024 shall “mutatis mutandis” apply to the present Appeal as well.

In view of the order passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.05 of 2024, wherein the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 has already been quashed and set aside, the substantive relief sought in the present Appeal stands substantially addressed.

ORDER

The present Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in Appeal No.05 of 2024 whereby the Appeal has already been allowed with appropriate directions to the Ld. Recovery Officer.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Harish Kumar Kaushik) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai Srishti