Bank of Baroda vs M/s Vision Organics Ltd. & Ors

Ashok Menon, Chairperson

The Appellant Bank of Baroda is in appeal impugning the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (DRT) dated 01/11/2017 in Appeal No. 4/2013 filed by the borrower company named M/s Vision Organics Ltd., a company represented by the 2nd Respondent challenging the orders passed by the Recovery Officer-I of the DRT dated 04/09/2013 in a review application filed by the 1st Respondent Certified Debtor in R.P. Nos. 88/2010, 89/2010, 90/2010 and 91/2010 seeking a review of the order passed by the aforesaidRecovery Officer on 24/07/2013 allowing the request of the 3rd Respondent auction Purchaser granting time to deposit the balance sale consideration of 75% and rejecting the application of the Certified Debtor to set aside the auction sale since the auction purchaser had failed to deposit the balance amount within the statutory period of 15 days.

Three appeals were filed challenging the impugned order of the Ld. PO allowing the Appeal No. 4/2013 vide the impugned order 01/11/2017. The 1st appeal filed as No. 217/2016 by the Certified Creditor Bank of Baroda challenging the rejection of the preliminary objection raised by the bank before the DRT with regard to the deposit of mandatory pre-deposit under section 30-A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (‘RDB Act’ for short) before entertaining the appeal. The second Appeal No. 5/2018 was filed by the 2nd Respondent auction purchaser aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PO setting aside the auction. And the present Appeal No. 159/2017 is filed by the bank challenging the setting aside of the auction.

Appeal Nos. 217/2016 and 5/2018 referred to above were disposed of by this Tribunal vide a common order dated 02/07/2019, allowing Appeal No. 5/2018 filed by the auction purchaser, and reversed the impugned order of the Ld. PO setting aside the auction. Appeal No. 217/2016 was dismissed as infructuous, holding that the preliminary findings of the Ld. PO in entertaining the appeal under section 30 of the RDB Act without depositing the pre-deposit under section 30-A cannot be interfered with. The aforesaid order of this Tribunal dated 02/07/2019 was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No. 3159/2020 by the Certified Debtor, and vide Judgment dated 16/12/2022, the petition was dismissed confirming the findings of this Tribunal in the order dated 02/07/2019.

The present appeal was not taken up together with the other two appeals by this Tribunal because service of summons was yet to be completed. Hence the present appeal came up for hearing before this Tribunal on 07/11/2022. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant bank, Ms NaliniLodha was heard. The Respondents remained ex parte. Records perused.

The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are the same as in Appeal No. 5/2018 filed by the auction purchaser. In view of the fact that this Tribunal has already set aside the impugned order of the Ld. P.O. in Appeal No. 4/2013 dated 01/11/2017 in the earlier order which has already been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court, the present appeal would also have to be allowed. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Ld. P.O. dated 01/11/2017 the set-aside and the order of the Recovery Officer dated 04/09/2013 is confirmed.

The Appeal stands allowed as above.