ARVIND KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.D. Chatterjee for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain for respondent No. 2 (Punjab National Bank), Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey for respondent No. 3 (Sri Ram Chandra Khan), and Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. This writ petition arises out of recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and is directed against the order dated 18.1.2006 (Annexure-5), passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Appeal No. 9 of 2005 (Arvind Kumar Sinha v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.), passed in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 30 of the Act, which upheld the order dated 18.10.2005 (Part-I) (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Recovery Officer, Patna, in R.P. No. 30 of 2001 (Punjab National Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna v. Thriller and Ors.).

(2.) Respondent n.7 (Rajiv Kumar Sinha) had obtained a loan of Rs. three lacs on 26.8.1985 from the respondent Bank to set up a proprietorship business impleaded herein as respondent No. 6 (M/S... Thriller, a Proprietorship concern, through its Proprietor Sri Rajiv Kumar Sinha, At-Fraser Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna). The petitioner is the father of respondent No. 7, and had stood guarantee of the loan. The latter fell in arrears leading to Title Mortgage Suit No. 80 of 1991, filed in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Patna. The suit was decreed ex-parte by judgment and decree dated 15.10.1996. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed Misc. Case No. 5 of 1997 in the court o1 learned Subordinate Judge-X, Patna, for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The respondent bank simultaneously levied Execution Case No. 9 of 1997 in the Court of Subordinate Judge-), Patna, for realisation of the decretal amount which was transferred to the Tribunal. In the meantime, the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 5 of 997 was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Patna, on the ground of its maintainability The judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge thus became final. During the pendency of the recovery. proceedings, steps wore taken before the Lok Adalat to settle the dispute. The Bank compromised the entire matter for a sum of rupees twelve lacs and odd which had to be deposited within the time-frame indicated in the order of the Lok Adalat. A copy of the proceedings before the Lok Adalat dated 30.1.2002 is marked Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner and/or respondent No. 7 failed to deposit the amount as a result of which the compromise lost its force and, therefore, the proceedings before the learned Recovery Officer revived. 2.1) After protracted hearing before the learned Recovery Officer, the petitioner's house was put on auction sale and respondent No. 3 has made his highest offer of Rs. 20,01,999/- initially, but later on raised it to Rs. 40,25,000/-, apart from incidental expenses. The admitted position is that respondent No. 3 has deposited the entire" amount as per the order dated 13.10.2005 (part-II) within the time granted by the order resulting in confirmation of the sale. The petitioner thereafter preferred the aforesaid Appeal No. 9 of 2005, which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 18.1.2006, whereby the appeal has been dismissed. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) At the commencement of the present proceedings this Court thought it fit to provide a senior counsel to the petitioner in the interest of justice. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee appeared as Amicus Curiae with consent of the petitioner and his counsel.