GBM MANUFACTURING PVT LTD Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties agree that the facts and law are the same in both matters and an order on the one petition will govern the other matter. The facts relating to W.P. No. 392 of 2013 are referred to herein. Despite obtaining directions, the respondent bank has chosen not to use any affidavit.

(2.) The writ petitioners assail an order passed by a recovery officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as being without jurisdiction and claim that on such ground the order would be amenable to a challenge in this extraordinary jurisdiction despite such order being appellable under Section 30 of the said Act of 1993 before the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

(3.) Certain facts need to be noticed at the outset. The respondent bank instituted proceedings under Section 19 of the said Act of 1993 before the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained a certificate therein. The bank applied under Section 25 of the said Act of 1993 to execute the certificate and obtained an order in the nature of attachment relating to an immovable property on January 4, 2013. Pursuant to such order of attachment passed by the recovery officer, the petitioners say that a proclamation was put up on the property owned by the petitioners that it had been attached. The petitioners applied before the recovery officer for annulling the order of attachment on the ground that the petitioners had purchased the property at a Court sale in the year 2007 and the petitioners got title from such sale and were not aware of the respondent bank having any interest in the property. It transpires that the constituent of the respondent bank had mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent bank and the title deeds remained with the bank till or about June 12, 2006 when the constituent obtained delivery thereof. It appears that prior to the constituent obtaining the title deeds from the respondent bank, the constituent had made over copy deeds relating to the same property to the UCO Bank on the basis of which a mortgage was created. According to the respondent bank herein, the bank's constituent had obtained the certified copy of the deed on some false allegation and without reference to the respondent bank since the respondent bank was in possession of the title deeds and had only returned the same in the year 2006. The mortgage with UCO Bank appears to have been created on March 14, 2002.