- (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bank as also the learned counsel for the intervener.
(2.) THE petitioner, being a financial corporation, claims to have advanced loan for which a charge was created over the property in question. The petitioner claims its charge to be the first charge of the property. It appears that the original owner of the property created a second charge over the property in favour of the respondent Bank for obtaining working capital loan.
(3.) THE petitioner claims that because of default it took proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 . In the mean time the respondent Bank instituted a suit for the recovery of the amount alleged to be due to the Bank and obtained a money decree in its favour. The money decree was transferred for execution to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The recovery certificate was issued. The petitioner, on coming to know this, filed objections before the recovery Officer under Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962.;