P SHUYJAATH RAHEED Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision in C.R.P. (PD) No. 936 of 2012 has been filed against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated in R.A. No. 881 of 2010, by which the Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the Appeal filed against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in O.A. No. 368 of 2007 as withdrawn, has granted liberty to the Petitioners to seek relief before the Recovery Officer with respect to the proceedings under Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, with a direction to the Recovery Officer to dispose of the same by following the procedure and giving opportunity to the parties and the Revision in C.R.P. (PD) No. 937 of 2012 has been filed against the earlier order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 29.8.2011, wherein the Appellate Tribunal based on the representation of the learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Bank that auction has been held and full consideration is yet to be paid by the auction purchasers, has directed the Recovery Officer to confirm the sale, while restraining him from issuing the Sale Certificate. Let us get down to brass tacks. The Second Respondent (M/s. P. Khaleelur Rahman & Co., Bangalore) is a partnership firm, which primitively had six partners. The Revision Petitioners 1 to 3 and the Third Respondent were four partners. One partner - P. Khaleelur Rahman passed away prior to the proceedings on 8.10.1994 itself and Petitioners 4 to 9 and the Third Respondent are his legal representatives. One other partner of the firm C. Jameelur Rahman, who was the Fifth Defendant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the Original Application, passed away pending the said proceedings and his legal representatives are Petitioners 10 to 12.

(2.) 1. Mr. T.M. Hariharan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would vehemently contend that inasmuch as the Recovery Officer has no jurisdiction to decide about the acceptance of the offer made by the Petitioners for the purpose of full settlement of the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the orders of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal are without jurisdiction, by relying upon the judgments in Megmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy, 2010 8 SCC 383; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994 1 SCC 1; Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Diwan Wakf, S.J. Syed Zakrudeen v. Syed Zindasha, 2009 12 SCC 280; and Hash am Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, 2007 2 SCC 355.

(3.) 1. Per contra, it is the submission of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 5 & 6 and Mr. K.A. Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has acted only as per the memo filed by the Petitioners. It is their submission that the Petitioners have not sought any opportunity to file a fresh case and there was no Application filed and it was only a Memo for withdrawal, which was allowed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.