Decided on September 15,2005



Motilal B.Naik, - (1.) AN interesting question of law is raised in this appeal on behalf of the appellants on the competence of a Presiding Officer to permit a Recovery Officer to decide the objections raised at the time of issuance of a recovery certificate.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank. From the narration of facts, it would appear that initially a suit in OS No. 350 of 1981 was filed in the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge, Faridabad. A compromise decree has been passed on 15.11.1991. However, the defendants seem to have initiated execution proceedings before the said Civil Court against the respondent-Bank alleging that the respondent-Bank has violated certain terms of the consent decree made on 15.11.1991. The said execution proceedings seems to be still pending before the Civil Court.
(3.) AFTER the enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit pending before the Civil Court stood transferred to respective Debts Recovery Tribunal if the value of suit is more than Rs. 10.00 lakhs. Later, on 17.1.2000, an amendment was introduced by insertion of Clause A to Section 31 which provided where a decree or an order passed by any Court before the commencement of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (Amendment) Act, 2000 has not been executed, then the decree holder may apply to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to pass an order for recovery of the amount. On receipt of an application under Sub-section (1), the DRT may issue a certificate for recovery to the Recovery Officer. On receipt of a certificate under Sub-section (2), the Recovery Officer shall proceed to recover the amounts as if it was a certificate in respect of debt recoverable under the Act. 4. On the basis of this amendment which was introduced on 17.1.2000, the decree holder, the respondent-Bank herein, made an application before the DRT, Chandigarh seeking issuance of a recovery certificate. At that stage, it would appear, the appellants herein who are the JDs/defendants raised several objections before the Presiding Officer bringing to the notice of the Presiding Officer that there is clear violation of certain terms under the compromise decree dated 15.11.1991 and that the decree holder Batik is not entitled to seek recovery certificate.;

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