Decided on September 27,2007



M.C. Jain, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) THE order impugned in this appeal is one dated 5.1.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT -I, Chandigarh in Appeal 5/2005. The appeal before him had been filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein against the order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Recovery Officer in R.C. 555/2001 issued pursuant to the order in O.A. 481/ 2001 (old DRT, Jaipur O.A. No. 21/99). The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal below whereby the sale of the property in question to the appellant herein was set aside.
(2.) THE relevant facts may be stated briefly. The respondent No. 4 herein -Punjab National Bank (applicant in O.A.) had filed O.A. before DRT, Jaipur against M/s. Amrit Cellulose Ltd. (respondent No. 5 herein) and its directors/guarantors including respondents 1 to 3 for the recovery of Rs. 2 crores and odd. Managing Director of the company, namely, Mr. J.S. Sethi died after the O.A. was filed and the respondents 1 to 3 herein were his legal heirs, too, besides being guarantors/mortgagors. The O.A. was allowed by DRT, Jaipur on 21.1.1999. A Recovery Certificate was, accordingly, issued. After the establishment of DRT at Chandigarh, the matter came to be transferred there and the Recovery Certificate was numbered as 555/2001. The recovery proceedings were started against the company and its directors/guarantors. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and recovery certificate dated 21.1.1999 passed in favour of the Bank. The ex parte decree and recovery certificate dated 21.1.1999 were set aside qua the respondents 1 to 3 on 22.12.2003. The case was re -heard qua respondents 1 to 3 and the DRT passed judgment on 28.5.2004 whereby the Bank was again held entitled to recover Rs. 2,24,14,973/ - along with interest and a fresh recovery certificate was issued qua respondents 1 to 3. During the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein, their mortgaged property in question was put to sale by way of public auction by the Recovery Officer, in which the Reserve Price was fixed at Rs. 60 lakh on the basis of valuation report dated Rs. 23.3.2001. However, the auction did not materialize. The property was again put to auction on 29.1.2005. This time the Reserve Price of the property was fixed at Rs. 30 lakh. Against the order of proclamation of sale, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed an appeal before the DRT on 24.1.2005, challenging the same and the Tribunal passed interim order that the auction proceedings would continue but the Recovery Officer would not confirm the sale till the disposal of appeal. So, an embargo was placed on the confirmation of sale. On 29.1.2005, at the spot of auction the appellant offered the highest bid of Rs. 3 -1,80 lakh and his bid being the highest was accepted. However, while finally deciding the appeal, the Tribunal below allowed it and set aside the sale. It has been ordered that the auction purchaser (present appellant) would be entitled to get back the amount deposited as sale consideration. Being aggrieved, the auction purchaser has preferred this appeal against the said order of the DRT.
(3.) A development took place when the matter was pending before the DRT that an OTS in between the CDs/respondents 1 to 3 herein and the CH/Bank was approved pursuant to which they made certain payments. Consequently, the appeal of the respondents 1 to 3 herein was not opposed from the side of the CH/Bank.;

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