Raj Mani Chauhan, J. -
(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as "RDDBFI Act") has been directed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2013 passed by Mr. K.J. Paratwar, the then learned Presiding Officer (Learned P.O.), Debts Recovery Tribunal No. II (DRT), Mumbai in Appeal No. 39/2012 (Crosslinks Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (Pan India Motors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL), whereby the learned Presiding Officer has dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 22nd November, 2012 passed by the Recovery Officer on the Miscellaneous applications (M.A.) (Exh. Nos. 146, 159, 194, 196 and 220) in Recovery Proceeding (R.P.) No. 01/2012, whereby the Recovery Officer allowed the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) (Exh. 194) filed by respondent No. 1 and set aside the sale in favour of respondent No. 11, Crosslinks Finlease Pvt. and its nominee, the appellant, Pan India Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Recovery Officer has also allowed the other prayers sought for by respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid M.A. The relevant facts giving rise to the present Appeal may be briefly stated as under:
(2.) THE respondent No. 3, Daewoo Motors Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the existing laws of Korea, having its Registered Office at 541, 5 Ga, Nam -daemun -no, Chunggu Seoul, Korea, and its Unit at Plot No. A -1, Surajpur Industrial Area, Noida -Dadri Road, Surajpur 203 207, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, had availed various credit facilities sanctioned by the consortium Banks, including erstwhile ICICI Bank Ltd. and respondent No. 4, EXIM Bank. The amount of credit facilities availed by the borrower was secured by creation of equitable mortgage of the immovable properties and hypothecation of movable properties by the borrower. The mortgage properties is being described as follows:
"All that piece and parcel of lease hold land bearing plot No. A -1 situated at Surajpur Industrial area, Greater Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar, Tehsil -Dadri, District Ghaziabad, U.P., State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSIDC), Ghaziabad (lessor) for a period of 9 years from 18th November, 1978. The lease rent payable to UPSIDC is @ Rs. 100 per year for first thirty years @ Rs. 150/ - per acre per year for the period for next thirty years. The Suit land is bounded as under:
1. On or towards the North by others land.
2. On or towards the South by 30m approach Road.
On or towards the East by others land.
(3.) ON or towards the West by Noida -Dadri Road.
Together with all the structures standing thereon, along with Suit plant and machinery except the Vendor Toolings and current assets, lying herein on as is where is basis. The approximate built -up area of all Suit structures is 1,95,193 sq. mtrs."
3. The respondent No. 3 Company indisputedly could not repay the amount of credit facilities availed by it. Consequently, one of the lender Banks, i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd. filed Original Application (O.A.) No. 162/2002 before DRT -III, Mumbai, against the borrower and guarantors inter alia for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,11,02,84,697/ - (Rupees five hundred eleven crores two lakh eighty -four thousand six hundred ninety -seven only) due as on 31st March, 2002 together with further interest from the date of institution of the Suit till final repayment.
4. The applicant Bank moved an application before the DRT for appointment of Receiver which was allowed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT. The learned Presiding Officer, appointed Khade Bapat Kabe Sinha & Associates, as DRT Receiver. The appellant thereafter moved Miscellaneous application (M.A.) before the DRT to allow the DRT Receiver to sell the fixed assets and current assets of respondent No. 3 Company. But the aforesaid Misc. Application filed by the appellant was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer. The appellant thereafter challenged the aforesaid order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, by filing Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. This Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 8th August, 2002 allowed the aforesaid Appeal filed by the applicant Bank and permitted DRT Receiver to sell the movable and immovable properties of respondent No. 3. The learned Presiding Officer, DRT -III, Mumbai vide judgment and order dated 31st August, 2004 allowed the aforesaid Original application filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. and issued Recovery Certificate (R.C.) to recover the decretal amount. One of the lender Banks, i.e. EXIM Bank was defendant No. 3 in the aforesaid Original Application.;