Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs M/S RAJEN (TEXTILE) MILLS PVT LTD on 5 July 2022
[KAUR]
Presented on:
25.05.2022
Registered on:
30.05.2022
Decided on:
05.07.2022
Duration:
Y M D
- 1 11
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
(Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer)
APPEAL No.1/2022
Central Bank of India
A Bank constituted by the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having
its Head Office at Chandramukhi
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021
and a Branch Office amongst other
places known as Zonal Office, 317,
M.G. Road, Camp, Pune – 411 001.
… Appellant
Versus
Rajan (Textile) Mills Pvt. Ltd.
(Under Liquidation)
Through Official Liquidator,
High Court of Bombay,
Bank of India Building, Opp. High
Court, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
2.
Mr. B.D. Pasari (Since Deceased)
Through his legal heirs
(A) Mr. Aditya Anil Pasari
Age : Adult, Occ : Business
(B) Mrs. Usha Anil Pasari
[KAUR]
Age : Adult, Occ: Business
(C) Mrs. Sunita D. More
Age: Adult, Occ : Business
(D) Mrs. Shashikant B Pasari
Age : Adult, Occ: Business
All R/at : Sujata 12, L.D. Ruparel
Marg, Malbar Hill, Mumbai 400 006.
3.
Mr. A.K. Pasari (Since Deceased)
Through his legal heirs
(A) Mr. Aditya Anil Pasari
Age : Adult, Occ : Business
(B) Mrs. Usha Anil Pasari
Age : Adult, Occ: Business
(C) Mrs. Sunita D. More
Age: Adult, Occ : Business
All R/at: Sujata 12, L.D. Ruparel
Marg, Malbar Hill, Mumbai 400 006.
4.
Mr. Shashikant B. Pasari
Age : Adult, Occ : Business
R/at: Sujata 12, L.D. Ruparel Marg,
Malbar Hill, Mumbai 400 006.
5.
Mr. Vishwas Arjunrao Barbole
Age : Adult, Occ : Business
R/at: Parvati Nivas, Kasarwadi Road,
Barbole Farm, Barshi, Dist. Solapur
... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
Mr. Satyan Jagtap – Advocate
For Respondent No.1
Mr. Manmohan Rao - Advocate
For Respondent No.2(d)
Mr. Ronak Shah - Advocate
For Respondent No.6
Mr. N .K. Khasbardar - Advocate
[KAUR]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 5th July, 2022)
1. This appeal emerges from order dated 13th May, 2022 passed below Exhibit-102 and 104 in RP No.121/2016 by the Recovery Officer, Pune, thereby challenging the order of dismissal of the said applications.
2. Facts of the case before the Recovery Officer can be summarized as under:
Recovery Proceeding No.121/2016 was pending before the Recovery Officer, Pune. During the pendency, settlement took place between the appellant (Certificate Holder) and respondent No.4 (Certificate Debtor-4) herein. Therefore, the Certificate Holder and Certificate Debtor No.4 made application (Exhibit-102) to the Recovery Officer requesting for sale of the suit property by private treaty and closure of recovery proceedings under One Time Settlement (OTS) for Rs.3.04 Crores. Simultaneously, third party applicant Mr. Vishwas Barbole, respondent No.5 herein has also filed application (Exhibit-104) requesting sale of the said property being made in his favour. The Official Liquidator of Certificate Debtor No.1 filed reply (Exhibit-
109) who has no objection for the same.
[KAUR]
3. The Recovery Officer by impugned order rejected both the applications holding that application for closure of recovery proceeding has to be filed before the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal and therefore, dealing with those applications is not within his authority.
4. Perused the record and provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (`The 1993 Act’ for short). At this juncture, it is to be noted that recovery proceedings are similar to execution proceedings under C.P.C. The Recovery Officers are shouldered with responsibility to execute the Recovery Certificate as per provisions made in the aforementioned Act. When there is satisfaction of Recovery Certificate, proceedings are required to be closed either on merits or otherwise. There is no legal impediment that the Recovery Officer has no authority to close the recovery proceedings when Recovery Certificate is fully satisfied.
5. In the present case, settlement has arrived at between the parties and therefore, application Exhibit-102 and 104 have been moved before the Recovery Officer. However, it appears that he declined to consider the same and grant prayers
[KAUR]
therein on the ground that as per prevailing procedure, he has no authority to close the same as per consent settlement, which is not acceptable by law. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(A) Appeal is allowed. (B) Recovery Officer to consider the applications Exhibit-102 and 104 afresh and dispose them off as per law.
Pronounced in open Court
Place : Pune Date : 05.07.2022
Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune