MS MAN INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 10 November 2025

**ORDER**

Miscellaneous Application (execution petition) No.1/2023 was filed on 31.01.2023 under S.22(2)(h) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the RDB Act' - praying for a direction to the respondent/defendant to:-

- (i) refund an amount of ₹17.34 crores towards the value of plant and machinery not handed over to the petitioner and interest at the quarterly Trusted by cumulative rate of 12% per annum from the date of first payment by the petitioner, i.e from 04.01.2014 till date of realisation of payment;

(ii) for the delayed possession of land, direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum of ₹52.87 crores towards quarterly cumulative interest calculated @12% per annum from the date of payment by the petitioner viz 04.01.2014 till the date of handing over possession by the respondent viz 17.05.2022 on the amount of ₹31 crores paid by the petitioner to the respondent;

(iii) to refund to the petitioner illegally collected charges of around ₹1,99,32,364/- towards alleged expenses on deployment of security personnel with quarterly cumulative interest @12% per annum from the date of payment, i.e 01.10.2022 till date of realisation of payment;

(iv) direct the respondent to reimburse ₹20 lakhs paid by the petitioner towards the Panchayat tax for the period up to 17.05.2022, i.e period during which the possession was with the respondent with quarterly cumulative interest @12% per annum;

(v) direct the respondent to pay ₹50 lakhs to the petitioner towards legal cost incurred till now from 2014 onwards before various forums due to the suppression of facts by the respondent and delay in handing over of possession of the schedule property;

(vi) direct the respondent to pay further interest on the aforesaid payments from the date of filing of this petition up to the date of actual payment by the respondent to be calculated at quarterly cumulative interest of @12% per annum; and

(vii) to pass any other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice and equity.

Tripethi Roy

2. The case set out by the petitioner/applicant in the memorandum accompanying MA No.1/2023 in brief is as follows:- This petitioner is the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the respondent/defendant pursuant to the auction sale notice dated 04.10.2013 issued under S.13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (as amended from time to time) – hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Even after deposit of the full sale consideration of the sum of ₹31 crores by 04.01.2014, the auctioned property consisting of land along with plant and machineries was not handed over to this petitioner in view of the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai in SA 62/2013 on the basis of the undertaking given by the respondent/defendant that they will keep the property in abeyance till 08.01.2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed SA 24/2018 for seeking direction to repay the bid amount along with interest and other consequential relief including damages before this Tribunal. The same came to be dismissed on 10.06.2019 along with a direction to the respondent/defendant to assist the petitioner/applicant in getting the sale certificate registered before the jurisdictional Sub Registry within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. The respondent/defendant was further directed to deliver possession of the schedule property to the petitioner/applicant. Aggrieved, the petitioner/applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in RA (SA) 120/2019. Pursuant to the mutual covenant between the parties, as per the order dated 02.05.2022 in RA (SA) 120/2019 the possession of the land (without plant and machinery) was handed over to the petitioner/applicant as per the panchanama dated 17.05.2022. Finally, RA (SA) 120/2019 was disposed of on 23.06.2022 with liberty to the petitioner/applicant to approach this Tribunal for execution of its order, if anything is unfulfilled. Since the respondent/defendant is duty bound to handover possession of the property along with the plant and machinery or alternatively refund the entire amount taken towards plant and machinery Trijalini Rao along with compounded interest and compensation for mental harassment. On the above grounds, the petitioner/applicant prayed for the reliefs sought for in the MA.

3. The respondent/defendant filed a statement of objection contending as follows:- The petitioner/applicant is a purchaser of the property which was a mortgaged asset to this respondent as well as the Bank of Baroda in the sale held in December 2013 and accordingly sale certificate dated 29.01.2014 was issued to it. Pending the proceedings under RA (SA) 120/2019 before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the possession of the factory unit (including all plant and machinery) was handed over to the auction purchaser as per the panchanama dated 17.05.2022. Accordingly, the sale certificate issued on 29.01.2014 was revalidated in October 2022. On the above conventions, the respondent/defendant prayed for dismissal of the MA (execution petition) with costs.

4. The petitioner/applicant produced thirteen documents along with the memorandum in the MA, which are for convenience referred to as Annexures A1 to A13. The respondent/defendant did not adduce any documentary evidence.

5. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the relief prayed for by the petitioner/applicant can be granted?

6. The Point:- Aggrieved by the sale of the schedule immovable property pursuant to the sale notice dated 04.10.2013, the petitioner/applicant on 17.01.2018 filed SA 24/2018 under S.17(1) of the Act before this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) to set aside the alleged sale of the schedule property by the respondent bank pursuant to the sale notice dated 04.10.2013 and the sale certificate dated 29.01.2014;

(ii) to direct the respondent bank to forthwith repay to the petitioner the sum of ₹31 crores being the amount of sale consideration received by the respondent bank from the applicant together with interest thereon @24% per annum from the respective Typed By: KAP

dates on which the respondent bank received portions of the said amount until repayment and/or realisation;

(iii) to direct the respondent bank to reimburse to the applicant the entire actual costs incurred by it in connection with the attempted purchase of the schedule property;

(iv) to direct the respondent bank to pay the applicant a sum of ₹20 crores by way of damages for the loss suffered by the applicant due to the respondent bank's failure to consummate the sale of the schedule property in favour of the applicant;

(v) to award costs of these proceedings; and

(vi) to pass such other orders and/or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. SA 24/2018 was dismissed as per the final order dated 10.06.2019. The operative portion of the order reads as below:- *"In the result, SA 24/2018 stands dismissed without costs. Respondent bank is directed to assist the applicant herein in getting the sale certificate registered before the jurisdictional Sub Registry within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. The respondent bank is directed to deliver possession of schedule property to the applicant and the applicant is also directed to take possession of schedule property within thirty days from the date of the order."*

8. Aggrieved, the petitioner/applicant filed RA (SA) 120/2019 before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, which was disposed of as per the order dated 23.06.2022. The relevant portions of the order read as below:- *"3. During the course of hearing the appeal, the appellant agreed to take possession of the schedule property in accordance with the orders of DRT and in view of that this matter is being adjourned from time to time so that the schedule property can be delivered to applicant/appellant.*

*4. Now, memo has been filed by appellant stating that the schedule property was delivered without ascertaining the actual extent or availability of plant and machinery and the same is not in accordance with the orders of DRT.*

*5. As the scope of the appeal is limited and appellant has agreed to take back the schedule property nothing survives in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to appellant to approach DRT-I Bengaluru for execution of its orders, if anything is remained unfulfilled."*

9. In fact, the direction in the order dated 23.06.2022 was to approach this Tribunal for execution of the final order dated 10.06.2019, if anything is remained unfulfilled. The first direction in the order dated 10.06.2019 was that the respondent bank to assist the applicant in getting the sale certificate registered before the jurisdictional Sub Tirupathi Rao

Registry within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. In fact, Annexure A11 sale certificate dated 29.01.2014 had been issued in respect of the auctioned property. According to the respondent/defendant, Annexure A11 sale certificate issued on 29.01.2014 was revalidated in October 2022. The petitioner/applicant vide Annexure A6 notice dated 07.07.2022 called upon the respondent/defendant to complete the registration of the sale certificate by intimating a convenient date for registration of the same. The respondent/defendant in Annexure A8 notice dated 19.07.2022 replied to Annexure A6 notice as under:- "1. It is an undeniable fact that the bank had issued your client the sale certificate on 29.01.2014 and vide our letter of the same date we had advised your client as 'further we request you to get the sale certificate registered with SRO, Koppal tomorrow i.e on 30.01.2014. In case of failure to do so, please inform us the date as per your convenience. However, in case of any eventualities in future any delay will be at your risk and responsibility. Thereafter the bank was regularly imploring MIIL to get the sale certificate registered by scores of letters and reminders but in vain as MIIL was not heeding our calls to reason.

3. The repeated insistence by bank upon you clients to get the sale certificate registered was in view of S.23 of the Registration Act, 1908, which requires the document to be presented for registration within 4 months from the date of execution. Despite our repeated requests, MIIL has failed to get the sale certificate registered within 4 months from the date of execution. Even if the document could not be registered within 4 months from the date of execution, the document could have been registered within the next 4 months subject to payment of penalty, as provided for in S.25 of the Act. Your client is seeking registration of the document after more than 8 years from the date of execution, which will not be automatically possible but requires suit to be filed by MIIL in terms of S.77 of the Act.

4. We wish to reiterate that our clients have been unable to get the sale certificate registered mainly due to two reasons, that is (i) the sale certificate having become stale; and (ii) non-payment of penalty for non-payment of stamp duty at the time of execution of document. Your clients are having legal remedy to pay the penalty for non-payment of stamp duty which penalty may be prescribed by the competent authority in terms of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and your clients may also file suit for registration of the stale sale certificate as permitted under S.77 of the Registration Act, 1908. Your clients are also liable for fulfilment of the requirements of S.194-1A of the Income-tax Act, 1962.

5. Such being the correct position, when your client has not complied with the necessary legal requirements, it is not at all clear from your notice as to what is being expected from the bank as help towards registration of the sale certificate. The bank will be prepared to render any lawful assistance to our client towards registration of the sale certificates but such assistance will not be extended to any steps which enable avoidance of necessary penalty and other revenue to be paid to the Government or any step which bypasses or renders void the requirements of S.23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6. Therefore, you are requested to kindly state in exact terms as to what help and assistance is being sought from the bank towards registration of the sale certificate. You are also requested to inform us of your client's position on the issues of non-payment of the penalty for non-payment of stamp duty and how the registration of a sale certificate older than 8 years is proposed to be done legally."

10. Registration of a sale certificate issued pursuant to a sale held in operation of law to the successful auction purchaser is his sole responsibility and duty. The respondent/defendant cannot take any steps for the same. The petitioner/applicant has not furnished any valid reason for not registering Annexure A11 sale certificate dated Typed by Krip

29.01.2014 in accordance with law. But it lapsed the period given under law by its own laches. Therefore, it cannot attribute any lack of action on the part of the respondent/defendant for non-registration of Annexure A11 sale certificate dated 29.01.2014 within the period as given under law. One cannot take advantage of one's own laches. The maxim *'nul prendra advantage de son tort demesne'* fit to this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in *ONGC Ltd v Modern Construction and Company [reported in 2013 (4) KLT 193 (SC)]* has held that a party cannot take benefit of its own mistake. The petitioner/applicant cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own mistake and wrong. Moreover, the petitioner/applicant as per Annexure A10 e-mail message requested the respondent/defendant to issue a fresh sale certificate in lieu of Annexure A11 sale certificate dated 29.01.2014 for the purpose of registration of the same and undertook to indemnify it against any legal action by the registration authorities towards deficiency, if any, in stamp duty and also undertook to pay the stamp duty and other statutory charges if applicable to be paid by it for the purpose of registration of the sale certificate, which was positively responded by the respondent/defendant as per reply e-mail message dated 30.09.2022. Accordingly, Therefore, the respondent/defendant cannot be asked to pay any compensation to the petitioner/applicant for the delayed registration of the sale certificate.

11. The second direction in the final order dated 10.06.2019 was to the respondent bank to deliver possession of schedule property to the applicant and the applicant was also directed to take possession of schedule property within thirty days from the date of the order. The respondent/defendant in this regard in Annexure A7 letter dated 15.07.2022 has stated that the petitioner/applicant refused to take physical possession of the property. The relevant portion reads thus:- *"The bank thereafter in April 2014 has obtained the physical possession of the sold assets and has requested you to collect the physical possession of the assets from us but you had refused to take over the physical possession of the assets, instead of choosing to file innumerable complaints against bank and various litigations before the DRT and High Courts. The Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal – 1 Bengaluru too in its order dated 10.06.2019 had directed you to collect the physical possession of the sold assets*

Tajulha Khar

*within 30 days from, the date of the order, which order too was not complied by you. Ultimately, in deference of the orders of Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai you have collected the physical possession of the sold assets from us in the month of May 2022."*

12. The petitioner/applicant has not furnished any valid reason as to why it had not cooperated with the respondent/defendant to take physical possession of the sold-out assets in compliance to the order dated 10.06.2019. Eventually, by mutual agreement the petitioner/applicant and the respondent/defendant fixed the date of 17.05.2022 for transfer of physical possession of the schedule assets and to complete all the formalities related to handover of the physical possession. The petitioner/applicant in Annexure A2 panchanama dated 17.05.2022 has endorsed that it received physical possession of the land without prejudice to its rights and subject to Annexure A3 letter dated 17.05.2022. After having defaulted first by its own and eventually on mutual consent received the physical possession it is unfair on the part of the petitioner/applicant to seek for compensation from the respondent/defendant for the delayed possession.

13. In the above preemies, the execution of the order dated 10.06.2019 is full and nothing remains to be executed therein. There is no unfulfilled direction. The main thrust of the case in the MA is that the possession of the land was handed over without the plant and machinery. Annexure A2 panchanama dated 17.05.2022 comprises of the hypothecated movable property, viz the plant and machinery described in Annexure A11 sale certificate dated 29.01.2014. Much water has flown under the bridge. A sale held in the year 2013 and the physical possession was taken over on 17.05.2022. Now, it is too late to report about missing of the plant and machinery. Moreover, the direction in the order dated 23.06.2022 was to execute the order dated 10.06.2019 of this Tribunal. It is settled law that the execution court cannot go beyond the decree. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot go beyond the directions in the order dated 10.06.2019 of this Tribunal and the order dated 23.06.2022 of the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Though under protest, the petitioner/applicant has wilfully paid the sum of ₹1,99,32,364/- to the respondent/defendant. It may be noted that the actual costs and damages sought for Tirupathi Rao in SA 24/2018 were not granted by this Tribunal in the final order dated 10.06.2019 except the aforesaid directions. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot rehear the matter and adjudicate the same in this MA proceedings. The remedy of the petitioner/applicant lies elsewhere. This Tribunal being a creature of the statute has no power, authority and jurisdiction within the four corners of the special statute to grant any compensation or damages for the plant and machinery, even if the same is not handed over or to adjudicate the matter for refund of the amount paid by it. The ancillary reliefs sought for in the MA are with regard to the delay in taking possession of the property, which has been answered accordingly. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the MA is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

14. Before parting with the order, it may be pointed out that the petitioner/applicant filed a rejoinder along with a memo on 26.11.2024 in counter to the statement of objection filed by the respondent/defendant, whereas there is no such provision either under the Act or the Rules made thereunder or even under the RDB Act and the Rules made thereunder which have been made applicable to the proceedings in an application filed under S.17(1) of the Act by virtue of sub-section (7) of S.17 of the Act to file a rejoinder to the original pleadings.

15. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Nanikutty v Kalpakadevi [reported in 2023 (3) KLT 849] has held that a party seeking to obtain a relief by filing a plaint is not entitled to seek for consideration of the pleadings raised by him at a later point of time in the form of a rejoinder, as part of the plaint and if due to oversight, a party fails to incorporate any relevant or material pleadings in the plaint, he can have it incorporated by filing an application under O.6 R.17, and the relevant portion reads as below:- *"A party seeking to obtain a relief by filing a plaint is not entitled to seek for consideration of the pleadings raised by him at a later point of time in the form of a rejoinder, as part of the plaint. The Code does not provide for such a recourse. It is clear from O.6 that a party seeking for a relief in a suit must incorporate all relevant and material pleadings in the plaint. If due to oversight, a party fails to incorporate any relevant or material pleadings in the plaint, he can have it incorporated by filing an application under O.6 R.17."*

Tipped by Karp

16. Despite making new pleas, which are different from the original MA filed on 31.01.2023, the petitioner/applicant has not cared to get it amended by incorporating the pleadings made in the rejoinder. The rejoinder can be looked into for admission of the petitioner/applicant, if any, and for clarification of the pleadings in the MA, if any only. Raising new pleas in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner/applicant is beyond the scope of the MA and not within the scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Ex-facie, the new grounds alleged in the rejoinder for execution of the order dated 10.06.2019 is beyond the scope of the MA and, therefore, cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the rejoinder filed on 26.11.2024, being bereft of any merit, are rejected. This Tribunal is fortified in this view by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Chaudhary v Commissioner of Delhi Police and Ors [reported in (2015) 2 SCC 156]. In the above circumstances, the new contentions raised by the petitioner/applicant in the rejoinder do not deserve any consideration and thus rejected.

17. Also, Ld counsel for the petitioner/applicant advanced all these points at length at the time of arguments. But the petitioner/applicant has not raised such pleas in the MA. Unless the dispute involves a pure question of law, the petitioner/applicant cannot advance any argument without basic pleading. This Tribunal is fortified in its view by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v P Buchi Reddy [reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594] and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Suryanarayanan v Kerala Water Authority [reported in 2017 (3) KLT SN 13 (C.No.17)]. In the above circumstances and in view of the settled proposition of law, the new pleas raised by the petitioner/applicant by way of rejoinder and at the time of advancement of arguments cannot be entertained by this Tribunal.

18. In the result, MA is dismissed. No costs.

[Dictated to my PA directly on the computer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 10^th day of November, 2025]

[IMTIAZ ALI] PRESIDING OFFICER

Typed by Kapi

Appendix MA 1/2023 in SA 24/201811

APPENDIX

Petitioner/Applicant's Exhibits

<table border="0"> <thead> <tr> <th style="text-align: left;"><u>Exhibit No.</u></th> <th colspan="2" style="text-align: left;"><u>Particulars of documents</u></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Annexure-A1</td> <td>14.11.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the petitioner/applicant company</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A2</td> <td>17.05.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of the panchanama</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A3</td> <td>17.05.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of the letter issued by the petitioner/applicant company to the defendant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A4</td> <td>15.06.2012</td> <td>Photocopy of index to RA (SA) 120/2019</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A5</td> <td>23.06.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of order passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in RA (SA) 120/2019</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A6</td> <td>07.07.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of the legal notice issued by the petitioner/applicant to the respondent/defendant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A7</td> <td>15.07.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of the letter issued by the respondent/defendant to the petitioner/applicant company</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A8</td> <td>19.07.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of the notice issued by the respondent/defendant to the petitioner/applicant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A9</td> <td>02.09.2013</td> <td>Photocopy of valuation report</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A10</td> <td>01.10.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of e-mail message from the petitioner/applicant company to the respondent/defendant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A11</td> <td>29.01.2014</td> <td>Photocopy of sale certificate</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A12</td> <td>06.06.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of certificate issued by the surveyor</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Annexure A13</td> <td>17.10.2022</td> <td>Photocopy of the Panchayath tax paid receipt</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Defendant's Exhibits - Nil

**PRESIDING OFFICER**

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 10^th day of November, 2025

**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.1 OF 2023 IN SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2018**

Between

M/s Man Industries (India) Private Limited, Man House, 101, S V Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400056, represented by its authorised representative, Ujjwal Dande. ....Petitioner/applicant

And

Punjab National Bank, having its head office at Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110075 and branch among other places at Anathalya Marg, near Kewadwadi Bus Stand, near Telegraph Office, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent/Defendant

**ORDER**

4. 10-11-25