ACHUTHAN Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this O.P. the petitioner debtor impugns Ext. P1 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in favour of the 3rd respondent State Bank of Travancore in T.A. No.1036 of 1997.

(2.) Heard Sri. T.G. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M.Pathros Mathai for the 3rd respondent Bank and also the Central Government Standing Counsel for 1st respondent Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and the 2nd respondent Union of India.

(3.) A decree by sale of mortgaged properties and also personally for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,66,823.36 with future interest at 14% per annum was passed by the Tirur Sub Court against the petitioner and seven others and while the proceedings for execution for recovery of the amount by sale of the mortgaged property were pending, those proceedings were transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal by virtue of S.30 of Act 51 of 1993 and the Tribunal passed Ext. P1 order. I am told that a recovery certificate in terms of Ext. P1 order has been passed. In fact, the Original Petition itself has been instituted before this Court when the 1st respondent issued the demand notice envisaged by S.25 to 29 of the Act read with R.2 of Schedule II to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ext. P2 is the demand notice which is also impugned in this O.P.