M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated. 19.8.2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in Recovery Proceeding No. 135 of 2002 by which immovable property of the petitioner has been sought to be attached for realization of the dues of the respondent -State Bank of India and further for quashing the judgment dated 15.1.2002 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in P.T. Case No. 22/99.
(2.) THE respondent -Bank filed Title Suit No. 38 of 1988 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj for recovery of about Rs. Twelve lacs which was taken by the petitioner by way of term loan and cash credit facility. The said suit was eventually transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal pursuant to enforcement of Recovery of Debt Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Debt Recovery Tribunal passed ex -parte judgment and the same was put in execution. In execution of the decree, the impugned order of attachment has been issued. I have heard Mr. P.P.N. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Bank.
(3.) MR . P.P.N. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he Title (Mortgage) Suit No. 38 of 1988 was dismissed for default on 31.7.1995 and the same was restored vide order dated 30.7.1996 passed in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1995. Learned counsel submitted that neither before nor after restoration of the suit, notice was given to the petitioner and the suit was eventually transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal also, without giving notice to the petitioner, passed the impugned judgment. Learned counsel further submitted that the factory premises of the petitioner is a sick unit and, therefore, the order of attachment is wholly without jurisdiction.;