Motilal B.Naik, -
(1.) THE present appeal is filed against an order passed by D.R.T., Chandigarh on 29th October, 2003 in appeal No. 10 of 2001 in R.C. No. 150 of 1997. Before getting into the issue, few facts which are relevant are narrated hereunder.
(2.) The respondent-Bank herein, instituted Original Application No. 472 of 1996 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), Jaipur against one Aqua Plastics Ltd. and seven others seeking to recover certain amounts. The Original Application appears to have been decreed on 2st July, 1997. Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated. The Recovery Officer, by order dated 19th May, 1998 issued attachment order on the property, the subject-matter of the appeal before this Tribunal. Having realized that the Recovery Officer has issued an attachment order, this appellant who claims to be a purchaser of the said property under a Tripartite Agreement dated 3rd May, 1996, filed objections before the Recovery Offfier urging the Recovery Officer that the so-called property is purchased by him on 3rd May, 1996 for a sale consideration of Rs. 7.0 lacs out of which Rs. 1.75 lacs was paid on 3rd May, 1996 itself and the possession of the said property was also taken. It was also brought to the notice of the Recovery Officer that the property in question was put to auction by the Haryana Financial Corporation (H.F.C.) invoking provisions under Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act as a result of default committed in payment of dues by the principal borrower and the property in question was purchased by the appellant for the said consideration. However, the Recovery Officer rejected the objections primarily on the ground that the respondent-Bank had a charge on the said property and, as such, the so-called purchase by the appellant is illegal.
As against the order passed by the Recovery Officer, this appellant-objector preferred an appeal under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 in appeal No. 10 of 2001 before the D.R.T. Chandigarh. The D.R.T. by order dated 29th October, 2003 dismissed the appeal, against which the present appeal is filed.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Rohit Sapra, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. M.U. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank. According to Mr. Rohit Sapra, Aqua Plastics Pvt. Ltd. who borrowed certain amounts from the H.F.C, defaulted in payment of the dues which resulted in H.F.C. taking recourse to Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act auctioning the property in question on 3rd May, 1996. On that day, this appellant offered to purchase the property in question for a sale consideration of Rs. 7 lacs, to that effect a tripartite agreement was entered into between this appellant, Aqua Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and the H.F.C. according to which this appellant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.75 lacs on the same day which was complied with and the balance of Rs. 5.25 lacs was to be paid to H.F.C. on 18th March, 1997. On the condition of depositing Rs. 1.75 lacs, the property in question was handed over to this appellant on the very same day. The other condition of payment of balance amount was also complied with by depositing Rs. 5.25 lacs on 18th March, 1997. Counsel stated, this appellant being the purchaser of the property in question, under the circumstances stated above, was enjoying the property without any hindrance. However, the Recovery Officer, D.R.T., Chandigarh initiated recovery proceedings against Aqua Plastics Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of recovery certificate obtained by the Punjab National Bank i.e. the respondent-Bank herein and ordered attachment of the property in question. At that stage, this appellant moved objections before the Recovery Officer bringing to his notice various factors, however, the Recovery Officer rejected the objections holding that the respondent-Bank herein has a charge over the property in question against which order, the appellant though carried the matter before the Presiding Officer, D.R.T, Chandigarh under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act, the D.R.T., Chandigarh also erroneously accepted the version of the Bank as if the Bank had a charge over the property in question without there being any evidence or any document made available before the Presiding Officer to that effect. Counsel stated, the respondent-Bank herein is making untenable claims over the property purchased by the appellant and that both, the Recovery Officer as well as the Presiding Officer were not justified in accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondent-Bank as if it had charge over the said property. Apart from this, Counsel also stated, when a tripartite agreement dated 3rd May, 1996 under Exhibit A-4 was placed before the Recovery Officer as well as the Presiding Officer, both the authorities rejected this document only on the basis that the said document is not registered and pleaded on any count, the Recovery Officer as well as the Presiding Officer could not have accepted the version of the Bank and pleaded for setting aside the impugned order.;