NATIONAL RICE AND GENERAL MILLS Vs. BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2005-6-4
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 07,2005

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Motilal B.Naik, - (1.) DURING the course of hearing the main Appeal No. 115/2003 filed by the respondent in Miscellaneous Appeal No, 13/2003, Ms, Rakhi Nigam an Advocate brought to my notice about the Miscellaneous Application No. 92/2005 filed on behalf of Stelco International Ltd. as an intervenor in the appeal proceedings. Since this Miscellaneous Application No. 92/2005 is also listed along with the other miscellaneous applications, the respondent Counsel submitted before the Court that the applicant is making lot of noise preventing the main appeal which is to be decided and prayed this Court to decide this application and, thus, Miscellaneous Application No. 92/ 2005 is taken up today.
(2.) It is stated by Ms. Rakhi Nigam, learned Counsel for the third party intervenor that the suit filed by the financial institution was decreed pursuant to which the Recovery Officer ! initialed execution proceedings. The mortgaged property was put to auction in the year 2002 and that the property was though put to auction and the third party purchaser has paid the price, the said property would have fetched more amount and stated that her client is prepared to pay more that the amount paid by the third party purchaser in the auction and has filed this application seeking to permit the applicant to join as intervenor in the appeal. It is also stated that the applicant noticed several defects in the procedure followed by the Recovery Officer while auctioning the mortgaged property and having realized these defects, the present application is filed with a purpose and pleaded the application be ordered permitting the applicant to participate in the proceedings. At the outset, I may say this appellate Tribunal is the appellate authority constituted under the scheme of the Act, to hear appeals arising out of the orders passed by the lower authorities. In other words, this Court does not have original jurisdiction but only an appellate authority under the scheme of the Act. On the basis of submissions made by the Counsel for the applicant, the application has to be rejected outright on the sole ground that this applicant is not an objector nor participated in the auction proceedings. Even otherwise, against an order passed by the Recovery Officer, under the scheme of the Act, an appeal lies to the Presiding Officer, DRT either by an objector or the parties or a person who has interest in the matter. Thereafter, an order passed by the DRT, if the party is aggrieved by such an order, such party shall be entitled to approach this Court in further appeal as provided under the scheme of the Act.
(3.) AS stated, this applicant has neither participated in the auction proceedings nor is an objector before the Recovery Officer. The auction was held in 2002 and after three years, an application is filed in this Court. Surprisingly, no provision of law is indicated on the application. Probably, the applicant has just thought out to move an application and has adopted an attitude as if it works, it is okay and if it fails, he may not bother. I must also say the constitutional Courts, the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226,227 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India respectively and that these constitutional Courts are entitled to entertain Public Interest Litigation (PIL) whereas this Court, I am afraid, is not empowered to entertain a PIL. It is surprising how such an attempt is made before this Court by filing an application of this sort. It could further be said this is a mischievous application filed without even quoting the provision under which this applicant lies before this Court. AS indicated, the dispute now pending before the Recovery Officer is only regarding confirmation of sale on the basis of auction and the third party purchaser has already deposited the price. Though this Court tried to seek the nexus between the property and this applicant, the learned Counsel is not able to say how her client is connected with the property and how they are interested in the property. At the most, I can say this application is in the nature of PIL and is filed only to frustrate the efforts of the Recovery Officer to execute the decree and, thus, the application is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent Bank within a period of two weeks. If the costs are not paid, legal consequences would follow.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.