AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/2017 was at the instance of the ARC which happens to be the assignee of debt in question, having got the debt assigned from Standard Chartered Bank and it has been reserved for orders today but due to some disturbing facts noticed while hearing that appeal the present suo moto proceedings are being initiated. The Bank had advanced some loan to one firm by the name of Regal Polymer Limited (now in liquidation). The repayment of the loan amount was secured by persons, namely, Mr. Ved Prakash Ahuja, Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja and Mr. Sandeep Ahuja, all of whom happen to be members of one family. Since the said borrower Company failed to repay the Bank's dues, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 before the concerned DRT. In that O.A. the DRT came to pass a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 5,46,72,296/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 14% p.a. from 7.6.1999. Thereafter, the Recovery Officer upon receipt of the recovery certificate started recovery proceedings sometime in the early part of 2013 but till date, I am told, the decree has remained unsatisfied. It appears from the record of the Recovery Officer, which was summoned in the appeal proceedings, that appellant had sought attachment of one property No. L-4/22, DLF City, Phase - II, Gurgaon - 122002, claiming it to be under the ownership of one of the CDs Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja, who is the husband of one of the two objectors, Mrs. Bela Ahuja. The property was in the name of two objectors Mrs. Shalini Ahuja and Mrs. Bela Ahuja. At some point of time, the property stood in the name of one Mrs. Ramesh Ahuja, wife of another CD, Mr. Ved Prakash Ahuja (since dead), and upon his death the property came to be recorded in the name of second objector, Mrs. Shalini Ahuja. The learned Recovery Officer accepted request of the Bank for attachment of the aforesaid property even though it was registered in the name of two objectors as the Bank had come across one document through internet, which showed one of the CDs Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja as prospective assessee of the aforesaid attached property.
After the said property stood attached, the two objectors appeared and filed objections stating that they were the owners of the attached property and, therefore, the attachment should be lifted. The appellant responded to their objections stating that the property was no doubt registered in the names of the two objectors but actually it was a Benami transaction. The recovery matter has been lingering on only to ensure that the aforesaid attached property is sold. The Recovery Officer's file does not show that apart from proceeding against the aforesaid attached property he had shown any interest to invoke other modes of recovery of public money as provided under Section 25 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. ARC has also not been showing seriousness in recovery proceedings. There does not appear to be any justification for the Recovery Officer not to invoke all the modes of recovery of public money all these years. That way, in the opinion of this Court, the Recovery Officer failed to exercise the powers and jurisdiction which Legislature has conferred upon him under Section 25 of the said Act. Now that, the records of the Recovery Officer are before this Appellate Tribunal, this Tribunal can always pass appropriate orders which the Recovery Officer ought to have passed but has not passed all these years and thereby over a crore of rupees have remained unrecovered. This can be done as an Appellate Authority as well as this Tribunal having power of superintendence over DRTs as well as Recovery Officers attached to DRTs.
Considering the fact that huge amount of public money is involved and the matter has not been taken with the seriousness with which it ought to have been taken by the Recovery Officer, this Tribunal is constrained to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 17-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (now known as the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993). The CD, Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja, is shown to bo resident of 22, New Additional Mandi, Sirsa, Haryana while other CD, Mr. Sandeep Ahuja, is claimed by the appellant CH to be resident of B - 14, Friends Colony, (West) New Delhi. Thus, prima facie, it shows that both CDs are well off persons but still they have not come forward to clear their liabilities under the recovery certificate. Therefore, a notice is ordered to be sent to both of them requiring them to show cause as to why recovery of money under the R.C. No. 70/2013 be not ensured from them by pressing into service different modes of recovery including by detaining them in prison These two CDs shall also now stand restrained from withdrawing any money from any of their Bank accounts wherever they are maintained. In case the Authorised Officer of the Bank has particulars of those Banks, he would be at liberty to deliver copy of this order to them for compliance and for remitting all the amounts lying in those accounts to this Tribunal by way of Banker's cheques in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Delhi.
Mr. Harshdeep Arora, officer of appellant CH is present in Court and he says that he will ensure service of notices upon CDs. He shall collect dasti notices and ensure service.
Counsel for the appellants had informed that both the above named CDs are now residing in property No. L - 4/22, DLF City, Phase - II, Gurgaon. Service can be effected at that address also.
This matter shall now be taken up on 18.9.2018.