DAISY ROUFF Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL APSARA BUILDING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel representing respondent no.3.

(2.) Having regard to the facts in issue and the law laid down in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon , reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal and service of notice on respondent nos.1 and 2 are not deemed necessary.

(3.) Petitioners have assailed the order dated 19.06.2018, issued by the Recovery Officer II, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, whereby order of attachment of immovable property of the petitioners was made. The said order of attachment was passed pursuant to Recovery Certificate dated 25.10.2017 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati in O.A. No.103/2014. The primary ground of challenge is that the order of attachment dated 19.06.2018 has been issued under Sections 25/29 of a statute called Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 2016 , when no such statute exists. On this ground alone, prayer is made for interfering with the impugned order of attachment.