D.K. MODI Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against an order of the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The dispute, in short, is whether the Recovery Officer committed an error of law in declining to exercise discretion in transferring the Recovery Certificate, arising out of a final order, in favour of the second respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the Bank'). The records would reveal that the Bank assigned the debt and all its rights and interest therein to the fourth respondent. It further appears to have assigned it to the third respondent. The principal borrower was M/s. Spark Plug Company India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') which is presently under liquidation and under management of the Official Liquidator who is represented in Court.

(2.) The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by its final order dated 16.09.2004 allowed OA No. 514/2000, upholding the Bank's claim against the company and decreeing its claim with interest @ 10 % per annum. The recovery certificate was drawn in accordance with the decree. Since one of the properties owned by the judgment debtor/company is located in Alwar (Rajasthan), a transfer of the Recovery Certificate was sought. The request for transfer, made on behalf of the creditor - whose right was secured at that time by the fourth respondent, was accepted and the Recovery Officer by an order dated 16.05.2016, transferred the Recovery Certificate to enable its execution against the property located at Alwar. The Bank (whose rights were taken over by fourth respondent) held second charge as against the property. The petitioner claims to hold a first charge against the property, moved for transfer of the Recovery Certificate. On the same day i.e. 16.05.2016, the Recovery Officer after noticing Section 19 (23) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, observed :

(3.) Senior Counsel for the petitioner urges that the Recovery Officer has taken an inconsistent approach in respect of the same subject matter - same property. On the one hand, it accepted the creditors (at that time, the fourth respondent) request for transfer, since the property was located outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whereas for some inexplicable reason, quoting the same provision, the DRT declined to accept the petitioner's request for transfer of certificate. The petitioner also stated that the Recovery Certificate in question (RC No. 142/2004) is concerned only with the subject matter and none other - located at Alwar (Rajasthan). Counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that whilst it is not in dispute that the tribunal did make inconsistent orders, this Court should not interfere in orders of the Recovery Officer given that an appeal is an appropriate remedy available under Section 30 of the Act.