State bank of india and Others vs Kingfisher Airlines Ltd others on 27 November 2019

**FINAL ORDER**

1) The Appellant has filed the present appeal to set aside the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Bengaluru, in TRC No.255/2017 in OA. No.766/2013, rejecting the Application filed by the Appellant 6D.No.1711/2019 IN

herein under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) r/w Sec. 29 of the Recover of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBI ACT) as being in contrary to law and also to set aside the order dated 22.04.2019 (Garnishee Order) passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Bengaluru in TRC No.255/2017 in OA.766/2013 as being contrary to law and facts.

2) The brief facts of Appellant's case are that Appellant received copy of impugned order dated 22.4.2019 (garnishee order) passed by Recovery Officer, of Debts Recovery Tribunal II, in TRC No.255/2017 in OA 766/2013, copy produced as Ann.A2. Appellant learnt that order came to be passed in execution of above RC for a sum of Rs.6203,35,03,879.42 with interest from 28.6.2013 till realisation of RC. Respondent No.16/C.D.4 was directed to submit statement of assets and liabilities of company as on 31.3.2018, audited financial statements from FY 2012-13 to 2017-2018, and provisional financial statement for FY

7D.No.1711/2019 IN

2018-19, with board resolutions for above period. CD4/ Respondent No.16 submitted only audited financial statement for period 2012-13 to 2017-18. Recovery Officer noticed that CD4/Respondent No.16 had kept a deposit of Rs.25 Cr., with Appellant. CHBs/Respondent Nos.1 to 12 filed affidavit on 22.4.2019 seeking attachment of deposit of Rs.25 cr and impugned order was passed by Recovery Officer on 22.4.2019. On receipt of order, Appellant entered appearance through counsel and filed preliminary objections on 13.5.2019 denying deposit of Respondent No.16/CD4 to the tune of Rs.25 Cr and sought time for filing detailed objections. Appellant filed application under Rule 11 of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961, read with section 29 of RDB Act, claiming Rs.35,54,20,000/- from Respondent No.14/CD2 and Respondent No.16/CD4, based on balance sheet of Respondent No.14/CD2 as on 31.3.2016, relevant extract from the account maintained with Yes Bank by the Appellant, letter dated 22.7.2016 issued by 8D.No.1711/2019 IN

Respondent No.14/CD 2 to the Appellant, which are produced vide Ann.A3. Respondent Nos.1 to 12/CHBs filed their objections to the said application, and both sides tendered written arguments to the Recovery Officer and the impugned order dated 10.6.2019 came to be passed. Findings of Recovery Officer in the impugned order dated 10.6.2019 are summarised as follows:

- (a) That the Appellant had merely objected to the garnishee order dated 22.04.2019 and did not seek recall of the garnishee order.

- (b) Appellant failed to produce any loan document in support of claim of Rs.58,14,20,000/- payable by Respondent No.14/CD2 nor has the Appellant produced any document in support of pledge, as the balance sheet dated 30.6.2016 of Respondent No.14/CD 2 shows that the said loan amount is secured by pledge of shares.

9D.No.1711/2019 IN

(c) The letter given by Respondent No.14/CD2 dated 22.7.2016 relied by the Appellant show that the balance of Rs.58,14,20,000/- due and payable states that the balance outstanding is subject to confirmation of the Appellant herein. Hence at the most the said letter can only be an acknowledgement of liability and not an adjudicated debt.

(d) That the Appellant being a secured creditor by means of pledge of shares, may enforce its pledge and/or establish its claim before the Official Liquidator.

(e) That the Appellant cannot rely on the judgment in OA No.766/2013 dated 19.1.2017 as the same is only an order in personam and not an order in rem.

(f) The Appellant has failed to provide evidence as per rule 11(3) of the Second Schedule of the IT Act to show that it had some interest in the property 10D.No.1711/2019 IN

attached by the Recovery Officer, and the claim of the Appellant is farfetched and not supported by any findings of any court and is found to be premature.

- (g) That it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer as he is merely an executory authority of the DRT and that it is beyond his jurisdiction to direct recovery of moneys independent of the Recovery Certificate issued by the Tribunal.

- (h) That although the claim of the Appellant as against Respondent No.14/CD 2 is not barred by limitation, they cannot claim the said amount before the Recovery Officer bereft of any Recovery Certificate in its favour.

- (i) That for the reasons stated above, the Appellant must comply with garnishee order dated 22.4.2019 by way of an affidavit.

11D.No.1711/2019 IN

The Appellant has therefore prayed for setting aside of both the impugned orders dated 22.4.2019 and 20.6.2019, on following grounds:

- (A) That the impugned order is contrary to law, weight of evidence and facts of the case;

- (B) That the order passed by the Recovery Officer is not according to law, as Recovery Officer has given a go by to Rule 11 of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act;

- (C) The Recovery Officer has failed to conduct investigation or inquiry under Rule 83 Part IV, of the Second Schedule of the IT Act r/w section 29 of RDDBF Act for the productions of documents;

- (D) The Recovery Officer has rejected the objections and claims of Appellant summarily without any investigation into the matter, and the Recovery 12D.No.1711/2019 IN

Officer has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him;

- (E) The reasons given by the Recovery Officer are not cogent and hence the order is also suffered by the violation of principles of natural justice.

- (F) The Recovery Officer did not see that the claim of the Appellant is formidable and conclusive; and also has not given any opportunity for adducing oral evidence in support of Appellant's claim; that there is no amount which is lying with the Appellant worth to be attached, and hence on this ground, the objections of the Appellant should have been upheld; the Recovery Officer did not appreciate that the Appellant is also an aggrieved party and has to recovery a sum of Rs.35.54 cr from Respondent No.14/CD 2, and Respondent No.16/CD4; and therefore just because the Appellant has not preferred a claim before the appropriate 13D.No.1711/2019 IN

authorities, the claim of the Appellant cannot be called as redundant, as the claim is not time barred; the Recovery Officer should have passed an order under Rule 11(4) for release of the property from attachment as no such property existed at the time of attachment; the Recovery Officer should have disallowed the claim of the certificate holder banks; the Recovery Officer failed to appreciate that balance sheet of Respondent No.16/CD4 for the year ending 31 March 2019 which although shows that the Appellant herein owe to the Respondent No.16/CD 4 Rs.25 cr., the same balance sheet shows the Appellant herein has advanced Rs.2.4 cr to Respondent No.16/CD4 and therefore is not liable to pay Rs.25 Cr; Recovery Officer failed to appreciate as per Balance Sheet of Respondent No.14/CD2 for the year ending 31.03.2016, Appellant advanced an total amount of Rs.58.14 Cr to CD2/Respondent No.14; Recovery 14D.No.1711/2019 IN

Officer failed to appreciate that Respondent No.16/CD4 is a 100% subsidiary of Respondent No.14/CD2, and this Tribunal treated both Respondent Nos.14 and 16 as one and the same; Recovery Officer failed to appreciate concept of lifting corporate veil in the case of holding and subsidiary companies; Recovery Officer has failed to appreciate that even this Tribunal in the very same case lifted corporate veil and held acts of Respondent No.14 and 16 to be one and the same; and such other grounds.

3) The Appellant has also filed I.A.No.1882/2019 with a supporting affidavit and five documents with list thereof, viz. copy of order dated 08.08.2019 vide Annexure-A4; copy of Review Application before Recovery Officer vide Annexure-A5; copy of Loan Agreement dated 31.03.2013 executed between Respondent No.14 and Appellant for a sum of Rs.71.53 crore vide Annexure-A6; copy of Irrevocable Power of Attorney executed by Respondent No.14 in favour of 15D.No.1711/2019 IN

Appellant for operating DEMAT Account of Respondent No.14 vide Annexure-A7 and copy of letter from Central Depository Services (India) Limited, freezing the shares of United Spirits Ltd held by Respondent No.14 vide Annexure-A8 in support of its appeal.

The Appellant has therefore prayed for setting aside of the impugned orders dated 10.6.2019 and 22.4.2019 of the Recovery Officer.

4) In response to the notice, Respondents No.1 to 12 who are Certificate Holder Banks, holding Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.62,03,35,03,879.42 against Respondents No.13 to 16 who are Certificate Debtors in O.A.No.766/2013 and TRC No.255/2017 have appeared through their Counsels and filed memo adopting the objections and documents filed before the Recovery Officer by filing two memos on 20.08.2019. The documents relied on by the Respondent Banks No.1 to 12 are memo dated 16D.No.1711/2019 IN

22.04.2019 filed before the Recovery Officer, seeking attachment of Fixed Deposit of Rs.25.00 crore with accrued interest from the applicant herein with a supporting affidavit of the Respondent No.1; Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2018 of Respondent No.16 who is also Certificate Debtor-4 in the above O.A. and R.C.; objections by way of affidavit of applicant herein dated 13.05.2019; and a copy of Board Resolution dated 02.05.2019 of the applicant herein. The Respondents No.1 to 12 have also filed copy of application filed by the applicant herein before the Recovery Officer under Rule 11 of Second Schedule of I.T. Act; objections filed by the Respondent Banks to the said application under Rule 11; review application filed by the Appellant before Recovery Officer for reviewing the order dated 10.06.2019; objections filed by the Respondent Banks to the review application filed by the Appellant; and a copy of the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer dismissing the review application of the Appellant on merits and directing the 17D.No.1711/2019 IN

Appellant herein to comply with the order dated 10.06.2019 within a period of seven days from the date of order i.e. 08.08.2019. The contentions raised by the Respondents No.1 to 12 are that, the Appellant has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 30-A of RDB Act and has not deposited with the Tribunal 50% of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal and hence the appeal itself is not maintainable. Respondent No.16 has been held to be jointly and severally liable to Respondents No.1 to 12 along with Respondents No.13 to 15 in the final order in O.A.No.776/2019 and the Recovery Certificate has been drawn up pursuant thereto. The attachment of the Recovery Officer was based on an entry in the financial statement for the period 2017-18 of Respondent No.16 showing that it was maintaining a deposit of Rs.25.00 crore with the Appellant herein. Pursuant to the attachment till date, Respondent No.16 has not challenged attachment of the disputed factum of the deposit. The attachment was done in accordance with 18D.No.1711/2019 IN

law. Pursuant to the attachment dated 22.04.2019, LKP Finance has been given sufficient opportunity to substantiate its averments before the Recovery Officer, but it has failed to do so and has intentionally delayed the proceedings with *mala fide* intentions of delaying the recovery proceedings of Respondents No.1 to 12 who are Certificate Holder Banks. It is also contended by Respondents No.1 to 12 that LKP Finance in its application filed on 21.05.2019, it is clear that the Appellant owes to Respondent No.16 at least a sum of Rs.22.6 crore and despite the specific order of attachment dated 22.04.2019 the Appellant has not complied with the order and has not deposited the above amount with the Recovery Officer and therefore the Appellant is deemed to be a Defendant in default in respect of the amount of Rs.25 crore and liable to be proceeded against for the realisation of the same. It is the further contention of Respondents No.1 to 12 that there is no order of competent court that Respondent No.14 which is Certificate Debtor No.2 owes any 19D.No.1711/2019 IN

amount to Respondent No.16 which is Certificate Debtor No.4 and therefore there is no question of adjusting any amount due from Respondent No.16 to the Appellant towards the alleged dues of Respondent NBo.14 with Appellant. The Respondents No.1 to 12 also contended that Appellant is neither a bank, nor a financial institution under the RDB Act and therefore the application made before the Recovery Officer which is an enforcing authority under RDB Act is an application before the authority without jurisdiction. Without any order of competent court, the Appellant is not entitled to hold that Respondent No.16 is liable for the debt allegedly owed to it by Respondent No.14. Further it is contended that the Balance Sheet of Respondent No.14 being relied on by Appellant is more than three years old and it is apparent that the said claim is barred by limitation. Further it is not possible for Appellant to seek to be impleaded in the proceedings in TRC No.255/2017 in O.A.No.766/2013 on account of settled position of law and 20D.No.1711/2019 IN

Section 19(2) of RDB Act which provides that, no such impleadment can be done after a final order is passed. It is further contended that the Recovery Officer may by a notice in writing require any person from whom money is due to pay to the Recovery Officer forthwith so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount of debt due from the Defendant or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than the amount. There is no requirement under Section 28(3) or elsewhere of RDB Act to issue a notice prior to attachment of the property held by such person due and payable to the Certificate Debtor and hence the contention of the Appellant is liable to be rejected. It is further contended that neither in the II and III Schedule to I.T. Act of 1961 nor in the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, there are any provisions for issuance of an intimation notice prior to the notice of attachment. Sufficient opportunity has been provided to the Appellant to put forth his case before the Recovery Officer, therefore there is no 21D.No.1711/2019 IN

violation of principles of natural justice as alleged. It is further contended that the claim of Appellant to exercise the right of General Lien and Set Off over the deposit in terms of provisions of Section 171 of the Contract Act is available only to Bankers, Factor, Wharfinger, Attorneys of High Court and Policy Brokers and is not available to Appellant which is a non-banking finance company and hence the same is legally unsustainable, and therefore the Respondents No.1 to 12 have prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5) On the above background, I have gone through the documents and records produced by both sides and also heard the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsels, Shri Rishab Shah for Advocates, GSK Legal for Appellant, and Learned Senior Counsel, Shri S.S. Naganand for Advocates, Dua Associates, for Respondents No.1 to 12 appearing for both sides; and the following points arise for my consideration:

- a) Whether the Appellant has made out the case to allow the appeal? and

- b) To what relief, the parties are entitled?

22D.No.1711/2019 IN

O.A.No.766/2013**REASONS**

6) This appeal is filed by the Appellant, challenging the impugned orders dated 22.04.2019 and 10.06.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer in execution TRC No.255/2017 in O.A.No.766/2013 which is for recovery of a very huge sum of Rs.6,203.35 crore with further interest from 25.06.2013. The impugned orders are for attachment of Fixed Deposit of Rs.25 crore of Respondent No.16 with the Appellant and order passed on the objections filed by the Appellant herein under Rule 11 of Second Schedule to I.T. Act. The attachment was effected by the Recovery Officer based on Audited Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2018 of Respondent No.16, who is Certificate Debtor No.4 owing the above claim adjudicated by this Tribunal. In the proceedings before the Recovery Officer by filing objections, Appellant has admitted holding of the said deposit. The contentions/grounds raised by the Appellant and which are forcefully argued by the Learned Counsel Mr Rishab Shah appearing for the 23D.No.1711/2019 IN

Appellant/Petitioner are that the impugned orders are contrary to law, weight of evidence and facts of the case; the Recovery Officer has given a go by to Rule 11 of Second Schedule of I.T. Act; the Recovery Officer failed to conduct investigation or enquiry under Rule 83, Part-IV of Second Schedule to the I.T. Act read with Section 29 of RDB Act for production of documents; Recovery Officer has rejected objections and claim of Appellant summarily without any investigation into the matter and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him; the reasons given by the Recovery Officer are not cogent and there is violation of principles of natural justice; there is no amount lying with the Appellant worth to be attached; the Recovery Officer failed to appreciate that the Appellant is also an aggrieved party and has to recover a sum of Rs.34.54 crore from Respondent No.14/CD-2 and Respondent No.16/CD-4 and just because the Appellant has not preferred a claim before the appropriate authorities, the claim of the Appellant cannot be 24D.No.1711/2019 IN

called as redundant; the Recovery Officer should have passed an order under Rule 11(4) for release of property from attachment as no such property existed at the time of attachment; the Recovery Officer should have disallowed the claim of Respondents No.1 to 12 who are Certificate Holder Banks/ the Recovery Officer failed to appreciate that Respondent No.16/CD-4 is a 100% subsidiary of Respondent No.14/CD-2 and this Tribunal treated both Respondents No.14 and 16 as one and the same; the Recovery Officer failed to appreciate the concept of lifting of corporate veil in the case of holding of subsidiary companies; the Recovery Officer has failed to appreciate that even this Tribunal in the very same case lifted corporate veil and held that act of Respondents No.14 and 16 one and the same.

7) Per contra, Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S. Naganand for Respondents No.1 to 12 vehemently argued that the Appellant who has filed the present Appeal under Section 30 of RDB Act, challenging the impugned orders of Recovery 25D.No.1711/2019 IN

Officer ought to have complied with Section 30-A which has not been complied by depositing 50% of the amount of debt liable to be paid by the Appellant i.e. Rs.12.5 crore; the impugned order of attachment dated 22.04.2019 has been passed by the Recovery Officer based on an entry in the financial statement for the period 2017-18 of Respondent No.16 which was filed by the Respondent No.16 before the Recovery Officer which reflected deposit of Rs.25 crore kept by Respondent No.16 with Appellant herein. Pursuant to the attachment till date, the Respondent No.16 has not challenged the attachment or disputed the factum of deposit and the attachment was done in accordance with law. The Learned Senior Counsel further contended that pursuant to attachment dated 22.04.2019 the Recovery Officer has granted sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to substantiate its averments between 22.04.2019 to 10.06.2019, but it has failed to do so and it has intentionally delayed the proceedings with *mala fide* intention of delaying the recovery 26D.No.1711/2019 IN

proceedings of Respondents No.1 to 12. Respondents No.1 to 12 also submitted that Appellant initially filed its objections by way of affidavit before the Recovery Officer on 13.05.2019 contending that Appellant is not maintaining any Fixed Deposit of Respondent No.16 nor any interest is accrued. The Appellant thereafter filed an application under Rule 11 of Second Schedule of I.T. Act on 21.05.2019 admitting that Appellant is liable to pay to Respondent No.16 a sum of Rs.22.6 crore and Respondent No.14 is liable to pay Appellant a sum of Rs.58.14 crore and after adjusting these two, the Appellant has to recover an amount of Rs.35.54 crore Respondents No.14 and 16 and therefore sought a direction from the Recovery Officer for recovery of Rs.35.54 crore by sale of assets of Respondents No.14 and 16. Thus, the Learned Senior Counsel contended that due to the admission of Appellant that it owes to Respondent No.16 at least a sum of Rs.22.6 crore, the Appellant failed to comply with the order of attachment and therefore the Appellant is 27D.No.1711/2019 IN

deemed to be a Defendant in default in respect of amount of Rs.25 crore and therefore is liable to be proceeded against for realisation of the amounts. Further the Learned Senior Counsel contended that the contention of Appellant that Respondent No.14 owes money to Appellant and the amount due from Appellant to Respondent No.16 is to be adjusted towards it by exercising the right of lien of set off cannot be entertained as the claim of the Appellant is not adjudicated whereas the claim of Respondents No.1 to 12 against Respondent No.16 is an adjudicated debt in O.A.No.766/2013 in which R.C. has been drawn vide TRC No.255/2017. The further contention urged was that the Appellant also cannot claim the right of lien and set off under Section 171 of the Contract Act as it is neither a bank nor a financial institution under the RDB Act. Countering the principles canvassed by the Learned Counsel for Appellant that the lifting of corporate veil which was done in O.A.No.766/2013 while passing final order on 19.01.2017

28D.No.1711/2019 IN

should be applied to the case of the claim of the Appellant herein, the Learned Senior Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 12 vehemently opposed the same stating that the said order was an order in personam and not an order in rem and would only apply to the parties to the said O.A. The Appellant was not a party to the said O.A. and therefore cannot seek application of the said principles to support its contention. Further it is not possible for Appellant to seek to be impleaded in the proceedings TRC No.255/2017 in O.A.No.766/2013 so as to benefit from lifting of corporate veil on account of settled position of law and Section 19 of RDB Act which provides that no such impleadment can be done after final order is passed. The Learned Senior Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 12 relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Allahabad Bank Vs Canara Bank and Another (2000) 4 SCC 406, and particularly to paragraph-52 of the said judgment,. The Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that despite giving sufficient 29D.No.1711/2019 IN

opportunities the Appellant has failed to produce any document to support its claim that the amount deposited by Respondent No.16 was adjustable or liable to be adjusted for the dues alleged to be payable by Respondent No.14. The Appellant has also not produced any document to show that the said deposit was a security for any loan granted by Appellant to Respondent No.14. It was further contended by Respondents No.1 to 12 that the arguments of Appellant regarding violation of principles of natural justice before attaching deposit of Respondent No.16 is bereft of any merits apart from being without any locus. When Respondent No.16 has chosen not to challenge the attachment order, and the order having attained finality, Appellant being third party cannot seek to espouse the cause of Respondent No.16 on the alleged grounds of violation of natural justice. Regarding the arguments of the Appellant that under Section 28(3) of the RDB Act, it was not served with notice prior to order of attachment is devoid of any 30D.No.1711/2019 IN

legality as the provision of Section 28(3) of the RDB Act simply provides that the Recovery Officer may by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due to pay to the Recovery Officer forthwith so much of money as is sufficient to pay the amount of debt due from the Defendant or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount. Hence as per the Learned Senior Counsel in terms of provisions of Section 28(3) of the RDB Act the Recovery Officer is only to issue a notice in writing requiring any person from whom money is due to the Defendant and in the present case, the Recovery Officer has followed the above provisions and there is no requirement to issue a prior notice of attachment of the property held by such person and due and payable to the answering Respondent. The Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in terms of provisions of Section 29 of the RDB Act and the provisions of Second and Third Schedules to I.T. Act, 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 shall as far as 31D.No.1711/2019 IN

possible apply to the recovery proceedings and there are no provisions under the aforesaid Schedules or Rules for issuance of an intimation notice prior to the notice of attachment.

8) I have considered pleadings of both sides and rival submissions. It is not in dispute Respondent No.16 is Certificate Debtor No.4 in TRC No.255/2017 in OA No.766/2013 to Respondent Banks No.1 to 12 for Rs.6203.35 Cr plus interest and Respondent Banks who are dealing with public money have filed memo with affidavit for issuance of attachment order, attaching deposit of Rs.25 Cr., kept by Respondent No.16 with Appellant herein, as per the audited Financial Statement for the period ending on 31.3.2018. Appellant has also admitted of Respondent No.16 having kept deposit with Appellant in the Application filed under Rule 11 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, on 21.5.2019 before the Recovery Officer. The claim of the Appellant that the said amount is to be adjusted against the amount of 32D.No.1711/2019 IN

Rs.58.14 Cr., payable by Respondent No.14 to the Appellant and therefore the Appellant is not a debtor of Certificate debtor No.4, but instead has to receive a sum of Rs.35.54 Cr., cannot be accepted as the Appellant has failed to produce any document supporting this contention. The document produced by the Appellant is the Loan Agreement between Respondent No.14 and the Appellant with a Power of Attorney. Appellant has not produced any document before Recovery Officer or this Tribunal whereby the Respondent No.16 has undertaken or agreed or pledged the said fixed deposit for the loan granted to Respondent No.14. The Appellant has also not produced any order of court of competent court jurisdiction upholding the claim made by the Appellant in this regard. The Appellant has further contended that Respondent No.16 being a subsidiary company of Respondent No.14, and this Tribunal having treated both Respondents No.14 and 16 as one and same in OA 766/2013, Recovery Officer failed to appreciate concept 33D.No.1711/2019 IN

of lifting corporate veil, for holding that the acts of Respondent No.14 and Respondent No.16 to be one and the same. The Appellant cannot seek application of the principles of lifting of corporate veil, as Appellant was not party to the said OA, and the order dated 19.1.2017 of this Tribunal is not an order in rem but it is only an order in personam and would only bind the parties to the said case. Thus the contention that the amount payable to Respondent No.16 and receivable from Respondent No.14 have to be adjusted or set-off by applying the above principles cannot be accepted and hence rejected. It is also not possible for the Appellant to seek to be impleaded in the proceedings in TRC No.255/2017 in OA No.766 of 2013 so as to benefit from lifting of the Corporate veil of Respondent No.14 on account of settled position of law and section 19(2) of RDB Act, as no such impleadment can be done after a final order is passed. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v/s Canara Bank and another (2000) 4 SCC 406, supports the 34D.No.1711/2019 IN

contention to the contra raised by the Respondent Bank in this regard. The contention of Appellant that there is violation of principles of natural justice is also found to be without merit, and without any locus, as Respondent No.16, whose deposit with Appellant is attached has not chosen to challenge the attachment order and the attachment order has attained finality as contended by the Learned Senior Counsel of Respondent Banks. The Appellant appeared before the Recovery Officer after passing of the impugned order dated 22.04.2019 and filed objections and subsequently IA under Rule 11 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, claiming set-off/adjustment of Rs.25 Cr., for certain liability of Respondent No.14. But no document or evidence has been produced by the Appellant though Recovery Officer has given sufficient opportunity till passing of the impugned order dated 10.06.2019. The appellant's claim is also not adjudicated by any court of competent jurisdiction. As the appellant was granted sufficient time 35D.No.1711/2019 IN

from 22.4.2019 till 10.6.2019 in the recovery proceedings before the Recovery Officer, the appellant cannot say that it was denied of natural justice or opportunity under section 28(3) of RDB Act. Thus the contention of the Appellant that the there is violation of principles of natural justice is also found to be not correct and therefore rejected. Thus, I do not find any merit in the Appeal filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned orders dated 22.4.2019 and 10.06.2019 of Recovery Officer.

9) When the Respondents No.1 to 12 are making their best efforts in recovery of very huge sum of Rs.6203.35 crore plus interest from Respondents No.13 to 16, it is not unlikely that the Certificate Debtors would resist such execution of Recovery Certificate. Though the amount involved herein would look very small which is attached by impugned order dated 22.04.2019, as against a very large and substantial amount of Rs.6203.35 crore plus interest, "as many drops make an ocean", any efforts to scuttle or block such recovery 36D.No.1711/2019 IN

of huge public money cannot be permitted by raising untenable contentions and arguments. Hence, looking from all angles, the Appeal fails, and is liable to be dismissed. I, therefore, pass following:

ORDER

In the result, D.No.1711/2019 is dismissed.

There will be no order as to cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 27^th day of November 2019)

**(K. RAVINDRAN NAIR)** **Presiding Officer** **I/C DRT-II, Bengaluru**

✽aSh✽