Avtar Singh vs Recovery officer II Drt Dehradun And Anr on 4 June 2025

1. 1. Avatar Singh S/o Sh. Shamsher Singh, R/o House/ Building/ Apartment: 11, Street/ Road/ Lane: Shiv Nagar, Near Ram Nagar, Area/ Locality/ Sector: Tehsil Bilaspur, Village/ Town/ City Shivnagar near Ramnagar, P.O. Haidabad, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh- 244921. PAN: KCIPS5030J.

2. 2. Jagjeet Singh S/o Sh. Gurubachan Singh, R/o Chetigaon, Ujjao, Kashipur- 244713. PAN: BXNPS5601J

.....**Appellants.**

**Versus**

1. 1. Recovery Officer-II, DRT Dehradun, Second Floor, Paras Tower, Saharanpur Road, Majra, Dehradun- 248171, Uttarakhand.

2. 2. Punjab National Bank, Branch- Haldwani Main, Near D.M. Residence, Nainital Road, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand.

3. 3. M/s Dhanveer Roller Flour Mill, through its proprietor Shri Angrej Singh, Village Daharia, Mukhani, Near Ranveer Garden Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand- 263139.

4. 4. Angrej Singh, S/o Sh. Gurdayal Singh, R/o Village Daharia, Mukhani, Near Ranveer Garden Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand- 263139.

5. 5. Mukhtiyar Singh, S/o Sh. Angrej Singh, R/o Village Daharia, Mukhani, Near Ranveer Garden Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand- 263139.

6. 6. Gurmeet Singh, S/o Sh. Harjinder Singh, R/o Village Udeylalpur, Mukhani, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand- 263139.

7. 7. Baljinder Singh, S/o Sh. Angrej Singh, R/o Village Daharia, Mukhani, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand- 263139.

**Avatar Singh & Anr. Vs. Recovery Officer II & Ors.**

8. Gurmej Singh S/o Sh. Gurdayal Singh, R/o Near raj Laxmi Floor Mill, Dahariya, Mukhani, Manpur Pachim, Haldwani, Uttarakhand- 263139

.....**Respondents.**

Present: Sh. Chitradeep Rana, Counsel for the Appellants Sh. Varesh Mittal, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank Called out, Ld. Counsel for the parties present.

Heard.

The Appellants have approached this Tribunal against order passed by Ld. Recovery Officer dated 29.10.2024 under Section 30 of the RDDB Act by saying that the amount deposited by appellants as upfront amount of Rs.70.00Lacs to purchase the property in question as per provisions of Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024 introducing by Respondent No.5/ CD No.3 has been forfeited in arbitrarily, illegally and by sidelining the law of the land in R.C. No. 286/2019 Punjab National Bank Vs. M/s Dhanveer Roller Flour Mills and Ors.

The Ld. Recovery Officer after accepting proposal submitted by appellants for purchase of the property, has passed an order on 12.09.2024 for deposition of the balance amount of Rs.2.50Crores and time provided a period of 45 days. But the Appellants could not success in deposition of the balance amount of Rs.2.50Crores within the time provided by Ld. Recovery Officer due to illness of Appellant No.1 he was admitted in the hospital for some time.

The Appellants are purchasers of two properties as under:

1. 1. *House constructed on land bearing Khet No. 1418, land area measuring 743.49 sqmt., covered area measuring 92.93 sqmt. Situated at Gram Mukhani, Pargana Jhaver, Cha Khata, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital, U.K. in the name of Sh. Mukhtyar Singh S/o Sh. Angrej Singh;*

2. Land Bearing Khet No. 1418 area measuring 4000 sq. ft. i.e. 0.037 hectare i.e. 371 Sq. Mt. Situated at Gram Pargana Bhavar, Cha Khata, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital U.K. in the name of Sh. Angrej Sing S/o Sh. Gurdayal Singh.

The Appellants had come for purchasing the said properties on the basis of introducing by Respondent No.5/CD No.3 as buyers when the auction sale dated 28.06.2024 was failed, the Appellants were allowed by Ld. Recovery Officer by order dated 12.09.2024 as per provisions of Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024 which permits the borrower to introduce buyer after three consecutive fail auctions conducted by Ld. Recovery Officer. After acceptance of proposal, a time of 45 days was provided to the appellants for deposition of 75% amount in relation sale price as 25% has already been submitted by appellants at the time of proposal.

The Appellants have not deposited 75% amount i.e. Rs.2.50Crores due to some financial hardship and illness of appellant No.1 and request has been made for 15 days extension by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.5/CD No.3 on behalf of Appellants. Ld. Recovery Officer has rejected application for grant of 15 days' time in relation to deposition of amount of Rs.2.50Crores in addition to already time provided by Ld. Recovery Officer.

The Appellants have also mentioned in appeal that the Appellants prepared the demand drafts of the remaining amount and are willing to pay the rest of amount of Rs.2.50Crores and prayed for quashing order dated 29.10.2024.

After filing Appeal, the demand drafts of Rs.2.50Crores (Rs.1.25Crores each) total two demand drafts have already been submitted by the appellants to the respondent bank on the basis of order dated 30.01.2025. The said order was passed subject to outcome of this Appeal.

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank/certificate holder has argued that the Recovery Certificate of Rs.5,47,19,075.67ps was issued by the Tribunal along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 12.00% per annum simple rate on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 15.01.2019 till the date of realization with cost.

The respondent bank/certificate holder authorities have made large number of efforts in relation to recovery of the amount due against the Debts holder as per recovery certificate issued by this Tribunal in the year of 2019 for an amount of more than Rs.5.00Crores (Rupees Five Crores only) but failed due to non-receiving of any bid in relation to auction sale notice issued by Ld. Recovery Officer for the property in relation to which, the proposal has been submitted by appellants. The Recovery certificate proceedings are pending before Ld. Recovery Officer since 2019 and other methods have also been adopted by the respondent bank/certificate holder authorities but not succeed.

The respondent No.5/ CD No. 3 has produced appellants as buyer. But appellants have also not success in deposition of amount as a whole in relation to the property in question within time fixed by the Ld. Recovery Officer, but the respondent bank/certificate holder has not been raised any objection in relation to deposition of amount Rs.2.50Crores after lapse of 15days time, as a huge amount is also involved in relation to recovery in this matter.

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank/certificate holder has also called attention that Rs.70.00Lacs had been submitted in the bank by the Appellants. The amount of Rs.3.20Crores has already been paid by the appellants to the respondent bank in compliance of order dated 30.01.2025 passed in this appeal and after adjustment of the said amount as the award has been passed in 2019 recovery of more than that amount is also due against the debts holder for which respondent bank is legally entitled. The said recovery is also not easily possible.

After considering whole of the situation of this matter as the appellants were unable to deposit the said amount within time provided to them by Ld. Recovery Officer, due to adverse circumstances and interest of the Financial Institution as discussed above in the opinion of the Tribunal, it shall be expedient that the appeal of Appellants is liable to be allowed as the Appellants have come before the Tribunal with demand drafts already prepared in the month of November, 2024 as on 08.11.2024 for the protection of interest of the secured creditor/certificate holder.

Hence the Appeal is allowed after considering the interest of the Financial Institution with the condition that the appellant shall repay interest of Rs.2.50 Cores for the said period i.e. from the date up to which time was provided by the Ld. Recovery Officer and upto the date on which the amount was deposited by them, as per recovery certificate in compliance of order passed by this Tribunal on 30.01.2025. The appellants shall also liable to pay any other amount for which they are duty bound to pay according to law applicable in this matter and order passed by Ld. Recovery Officer dated 29.10.2024 is setting-aside accordingly in relation to deposition of amount in question including forfeiture. The Ld. Recovery officer is also directed to take further action as per requirement of this matter.

This order shall not be treated as precedent.

In the light of above observations, the Appeal is disposed off accordingly. No order as to cost.

Interim order, if any vacated. All interim applications are also disposed off accordingly.

Record be consigned.

Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Recovery officer concerned with file of Recovery certificate for further compliance immediately.

(Umesh Kumar Sharma) Presiding Officer DRT, Dehradun

04.06.2025