BHAT Vs. ANUGRAHA CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were among the debtors in a proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the "RDB Act", for short, that led to Ext. P1 order dated 23-6-2000 ordering issuance of recovery certificate in the terms, inter alia, that the debt be realized from the defendants and by sale of the properties scheduled in the original application; that the schedule to the original application be the schedule to the recovery certificate; that in case the sale proceeds of the properties scheduled in the original application is inadequate to satisfy the debt, such other amounts be realized from the defendants and their all other assets and that if needed, the defendants 2 & 4 be proceeded against their person and be arrested and detained, as per rules. That recovery order and consequential certificate became final.

(2.) Thereafter, the recovery officer proceeded with sale in the course of recovery and issued a proclamation. Petitioners did not object to that proclamation, though represented by counsel. Pending such proceedings, petitioners made different representations to the superior authorities in the Bank seeking waiver or settlement of the outstandings. That did not fructify since the petitioners apparently stood by their terms. In spite of different adjournments, the sale did not take place for want of bidders. A fresh proclamation was issued reducing the upset price. Thereafter, the property was purchased by the first respondent, a charitable trust, which was the sole participant in the auction. Petitioners filed applications to set aside the sale. Those applications were dismissed by the recovery officer. In appeals before them, that was affirmed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and by the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) Petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, but sought leave to withdraw that petition leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn.