BIZMART PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dtd. 4/3/2024 passed and sale notice dtd. 24/1/2024 issued by the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri in R.C. No. 4 of 2021.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.1-Bank of Baroda initiated a proceeding before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri under Sec. 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RDB Act') being O.A. No. 4 of 2019 for recovery of the alleged debt assessed to the tune of Rs.7,52,47,142.89 against the petitioners and the proforma respondents. On 23/3/2021, the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri passed judgment and decree in the aforesaid O.A. Consequent thereto a recovery proceeding was initiated before the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri which has been registered as R.C. No. 4 of 2021. The learned Recovery Officer on 13/1/2022 as per requirement directed the opposite party no.1-Bank to serve demand notice upon the petitioners. However, without service of demand notice, on the returnable date i.e. 24/2/2022, the opposite party no.1-Bank prayed for attachment of the property of the petitioners. The learned Recovery Officer directed the opposite party no.1-Bank to submit the service report on substitution of the name of the bank and produce statement of accounts of the loan account of the petitioners on the next date of hearing. Direction passed by the learned Recovery Officer was not complied with by the opposite party no.1-Bank. Despite apparent non-compliance, the prayer of opposite party no.1-Bank for attachment of the property of the petitioners was unilaterally allowed by the learned Recovery Officer. The petitioner filed an application being I.A. No. 21 of 2023 praying inter alia for direction upon the opposite party no.1-Bank to provide certain information and documents to which the opposite party no.1-Bank was directed to file affidavit-in-opposition. After lapse of substantial period, the opposite party no.1-Bank served a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition through email. Soon thereafter on 6/6/2023, submissions were advanced on behalf of the opposite party no.1-Bank for appointment of Receiver for attachment and taking over physical possession of the property of the petitioners. On 8/8/2023, the learned Recovery Officer directed that notice for settling of sale proclamation of the property of the petitioners be issued and served upon the petitioners. On 22/12/2023, the learned Recovery Officer directed the demand notice to be published in two newspapers. On 24/1/2024, the opposite party no.1-Bank submitted service report on paper publication of the demand notice and on such date a sale notice was issued by the learned Recover Officer which was published in the newspapers "The Telegraph" and "Anandabazar Patrika" on 28/1/2024. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application registered as I.A. No. 30 of 2024 praying inter alia for recall of the order dtd. 24/1/2024 and setting aside of the impugned sale notice dtd. 24/1/2024, precisely, on the grounds that the learned Recovery Officer did not have the requisite jurisdiction to take any steps in connection with a property which is outside the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal and non-compliance of the order of the learned Recovery Officer by the opposite party no.1-Bank to serve a copy of the demand notice upon the petitioners. On 4/3/2024, the application of the petitioners being I.A. 30 of 2024 was dismissed by the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred the present revisional application.

(3.) Mr. Nilesh Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that learned Recovery Officer as an Executing Court was devoid of jurisdiction to deal with the property in question lying at Kolkata inasmuch as the same is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Recovery Officer. The execution of the said property in question could only be conducted by the learned Recovery Officer that has territorial jurisdiction over the said property in question. The learned Recovery Officer erred in observing that since the Recovery Certificate was issued by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri, therefore, the learned Recovery Officer had exclusive jurisdiction to sell the property of the petitioners even though it is falling outside its jurisdiction which is an absolute erroneous assumption of law. Referring to Sec. 39 Sub-Sec. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), he submitted that a Court which passed the decree is not authorised to execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. He further submitted that as per Sec. 19 of the RDB Act, where the Tribunal, which has issued a Certificate of Recovery, is satisfied that the property is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of two or more Tribunals, it may send the copies of the Certificate of Recovery for execution to such other Tribunals where the property is situated. It is not in dispute that the property in question is located within Police Station-Purba Jadavpur, District-24 Parganas (South) and, therefore, the learned Recovery Officer, Siliguri ought to have sent the Certificate of Recovery issued by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri to the Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the property in question. To buttress his contention, he relied on the following decisions: