ACHALA GUPTA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on 12th July, 2013 while exercising the powers vested with it under Section 30 of the said Act, 1993. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present case are that according to the appellant No. 1 she is the owner of the property in question. The appellant No. 2 was the guarantor and the loan transaction was made in favour of the Certificate Debtor firm namely United Soya Products Ltd. The Bank filed a Civil Suit for recovery of its dues and ultimately the said Civil Suit could not be decided by the Civil Court and after promulgation of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the said Civil Suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal which was registered as T.A. No. 1172/1998 and the same was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by its order dated 16th August, 2000 and the Recovery Certificate was issued. The appellant No. 2 was also jointly and severally held liable to the due alongwith principal borrower.

(2.) AFTER when the said certificate was issued then the land bearing Khasra Nos. 367 -374 -386/4/1/1, 373/1, 375 and 377 admeasuring 12.31 acres, situated at P.H. No. 42, Village Bawariya Kalan, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal, M.P. was attached by the Recovery Officer. The proceedings for attachment were initiated by the Recovery Officer on the basis of the information in Form 17 submitted by the Bank. The property was to be put to auction by the Recovery Officer but the Recovery Officer by his order dated 15th June, 2012 on the objection filed by the appellant No. 1 directed to maintain status quo with the result that the property could not be put to auction.

(3.) AGAINST the order passed by the Recovery Officer, the Bank preferred an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide the order impugned dated 12th July, 2013 allowed the Appeal preferred by the Bank and set aside the order dated 9th August, 2012 passed by the Recovery Officer by which the objection so raised by the appellant No. 1 was accepted.