- (1.) The judgment of the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal dated 10.02.2017 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62682 of 2012 is basically assailed before us on the ground that the learned Single Judge was not correct while returning a finding that the State Bank of India, a nationalized bank and its assignee Kotak Mahindra Bank could have assigned the assets covered by the recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1993) only in favour of a banking company and not in favour of a private person like the appellant (M/s. Gorakhpur Steels and Metals Pvt. Ltd.) before us.
(2.) It is submitted that the order of the Presiding Officer in Case No. DRC-07 of 2006 (State Bank of India v. M/s. Ashok Iron and Steel Rolling Mills and Others) rejecting the application made by M/s. Gorakhpur Steels and Metals Pvt. Ltd. the appellant for being substituted in place of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. is also bad. Counsel for the respondents in this appeal in reply would contend that assignment of the assets represented by the recovery certificate to a private person is not permissible under the provisions of the Act, 1993 read with the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. Since Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. who were substituted in the application before the Recovery Tribunal had prayed for deleting their name from the proceedings and their application has been allowed, the recovery proceedings under the Act, 1993 cannot continue any further.
(3.) For appreciating the controversy so raised, it is appropriate that relevant facts may be stated at the outset.;