AGORAMA Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The Counsel for the respondent 2 is absent. A request is made for an adjournment on his behalf. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) The petitioner is a partnership firm and had applied for allotment of an industrial land with the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' for brevity) respondent 4 herein and was allotted land measuring 1 acres in plot No. 27 at Jigani I Phase, Industrial Area, Jigani and was further allotted an additional 1 acre at a cost of Rs. 62.90/- per square foot, the total area measuring 7,991 square metres. The petitioner was put in possession and thereafter, had constructed a factory building. It was at that juncture that respondent 4 informed the petitioner that the petitioner should not utilise the additional one acre of land, on the ground that the previous allottee, one Magnus Vision Private Limited-respondent 3 herein had filed a writ petition challenging the resumption of the land by the Board. This compelled the petitioner to file a writ petition of his own in Writ Petition No. 34564 of 1995, questioning the directions issued by the Board. This petition was allowed whereby, this Court had directed the Board to resume the land from respondent 3 and execute necessary documentation, in favour of the petitioner. Since this was not complied with, the petitioner had to approach this Court by way of a contempt petition and thereafter, enforced the orders of this Court. It is pursuant to this, a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 20-6-2003 was executed and the petitioner was in possession running his industrial establishment. At this juncture, the State Bank of India-respondent 2 herein, is said to have instituted recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal' for brevity), Bangalore under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT Act' for brevity) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,06,22,308/- in O.A. No. 325 of 1995. The petitioner however was not a party to the said proceedings, though the property in the possession of the petitioner was the subject-matter of those proceedings. It transpires that respondent 3, who was the earlier allottee of a portion of this property, had offered as security, the lease hold rights conferred on it, in favour of respondent 2 and recovery proceedings were initiated seeking to enforce the security so offered and it is in this background that the Tribunal proceeded to issue the recovery certificate enabling respondent 2 to proceed, to deal with the lease hold rights thus offered as security and pursuant to the recovery certificate. Notice of demand is stated to have been issued along with an order of attachment of the schedule property and there was also a sale proclamation against the respondents 3 to 5. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.