Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited vs UCO Bank & Ors.

Since both the appeals have arisen in the common T.A. 216 of 1994 and R.P. 142 of 2003, set of facts and issues involved are common, hence both the appeals are being decided simultaneously by a common judgment.

Heard Learned Counsel for Appellants, Mr. Swarup Banerjee, Mr. Shreyan Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank and Mr. Joy Saha, Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

Instant appeal has been preferred against order No. 48 dated 8.6.2010 passed by DRT-I, Kolkata in T.A. 216 of 1994.

At the very outset, for proper appreciation of the submission made by Learned Counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the reliefs sought for by the Appellants in the Appeal No. 129 of 2014:

Instant Appeal No. 130 of 2014 is preferred against order dated 23.2.2012 passed by DRT-I, Kolkata in Appeal No. 2 of 2011 (Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited -vs- UCO Bank & 0thers). Appeal was filed against order dated 23.3.2011 passed by Recovery Officer in R.P. 142 of 2003 arising out of T.A. 216 of 1994. Learned Counsel DRT vide impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Recovery Officer dated 23.3.2011 to the extent that the attachment share in question is released and the Receiver appointed by the said order is discharged. However, the Union of India may discharge its liability and decide in this matter by transferring its shares in favour of Respondent no. 2 or by any other way. Respondents No. 1 and 2 may proceed under the Recovery Proceedings to receive the dues in respect of other properties of Certificate Debtors No. 1 and 2 in accordance with law. Instant order of the Presiding Officer is passed in R.P. 142 of 2003 which is withdrawn by the Certificate Holder.

Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 prays for dismissal of the appeal being infructuous as they have withdrawn the Recovery Proceedings No. 142 of 2003 before the Recovery Officer on 25.11.2025 and the Learned Presiding Officer has withdrawn the Recovery Proceedings Case No. 142 of 2003 vide order dated 9.12.2025. Subsequently, Recovery Officer vide order dated 23.12.2025 closed the Recovery Proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal which arises out of an order dated 8.6.2010 arising out of the Recovery Proceedings No. 142 of 2003 has become infructuous.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Civil No. 7315 of 2021 and 7316 of 2021 (Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha -vs-Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) and 0thers) has held in paragraph 34 that the TPG Equity Management Private Limited, who is Respondent No. 2, is an Assignee in terms of the Assignment Agreement dated 17.11.2009 with the UCO Bank. Accordingly, the judgment dated 3.3.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta was set aside and further directed that the proceedings will continue before the Company Court of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in accordance with law.

Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 2 would further submit that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order dated 25^th November, 2025 passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Kolkata in the Recovery Proceedings No. 142 of 2003 which was initiated at the behest of the UCO Bank wherein now TPG Equity Management Private Limited (in short ‘TPG’), is the Assignee who has withdrawn the Recovery Certificate in compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred above.

It is further submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has taken care of all the issues and when the Recovery Proceedings has itself been withdrawn the appeal cannot proceed.

Per contra, Learned Counsel for Appellant opposed the prayer for dismissal of the appeal being infructuous. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Appellant has challenged all the orders passed in the Recovery Proceedings. Appellant has preferred a statutory appeal. Appellant was not a party to the Recovery Proceedings and he has not been served with the application for withdrawing the Recovery Certificate. Learned Counsel for Appellant also entered into the merits of the matter by submitting that the Assignment Agreement in favour of TPG is against the specific provisions of law. The appeal was filed after obtaining leave of the Appellate Tribunal. Appeal cannot be dismissed as infructuous in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Jurisdiction of the Company Court cannot over-ride the jurisdiction of the DRT. A substantive appeal is filed by the Appellants. No finding is recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the proceedings pending before the DRT.

As referred to above, the instant appeal is preferred by the Appellants against the order dated 8.6.2010 in the R.P. 142 of 2003 which was an interlocutory order wherein the prayer of CHB for appointment of the Receiver in the Committee of Management was allowed. Further it was held that TPG is not a Certificate Holder. However, in the order dated 15.6.2020, Learned Presiding Officer of the DRT issued direction to the Recovery Officer to cause necessary amendment in the Certificate and include TPG as Certificate Holder No. 2 and to proceed further in accordance with law against the Certificate Debtor for recovery.

Order under challenge is dated 8.6.2010 only.

Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that all the orders, i.e., order No. 44 dated 21.4.2010 passed by Recovery Officer, Order No. 48 dated 8.6.2010 passed by Recovery Officer and Order No. 50 dated 24.6.2010 passed by Recovery Officer and Order No. 16 dated 23.2.2012, passed by the Presiding Officer, are under challenge. He has placed reliance upon Seema Textiles & 0thers -vs-Punjab & Sind Bank [(2005) 1 BC 1). This is a judgment of Coordinate Bench of DRAT, Delhi which has no binding effect over this Appellate Tribunal.

Reliance is also placed upon Garikapati Veeraya -vs-N. Subhaiah Choudhry & 0thers) (AIR 1957 SC 540) wherein it was held that right to appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. There cannot be two opinion that the right of appeal is substantial right but at the same time Appellant is required to challenge one impugned order in an appeal. But in the present case, Appellant has only challenged order dated 8.6.2010, as referred to above. Hence veracity and illegality of that order can only be looked into in the appeal. All other orders are not challenged in appeal; hence their legality cannot be looked into in this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal can only be treated as an appeal against the against order No. 48 dated 8.6.2010 passed by DRT-I, Kolkata in T.A. 216 of 1994.

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 17^th May, 2024 in SLP Civil No. 7315-7316 of 2021 (General Secretary, Government of Orissa Bharat Properties and Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) & Others). The SLP was filed by TPG impugning the orders dated 9.3.2023 and 13.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, all the issues raised by the Appellant herein were before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hon’ble Apex Court has recorded that on 17.11.2009 UCO Bank entered into Assignment Agreement with TPG for consideration of Rs.55.00 lac. Impleadment of TPG in place of UCO Bank was allowed by DRT vide an ex parte order dated 15.6.2010 in response to UCO Bank’s application. Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 34 held that:

TPG was impleaded as a Certificate Holder vide order dated 15.6.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT which order is not challenged. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court the proceedings will continue before the Company Court of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in accordance with law, as noted above. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the Appellants regarding continuity of the appeal does not survive.

No doubt, the jurisdiction of the DRT as well as Company Court are exclusive; but at the same time when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already decided the issue and except for Recovery Proceedings, no other matter is pending before the DRT which too is withdrawn by the Certificate Holder; nothing remains before the DRT for adjudication.

The issues raised about the right of appeal being substantial right, could not be disputed; but at the same time, all the orders, as claimed by the Appellants, could not be challenged in one appeal. Reliance is placed upon Rule 12 of the DRAT Procedure Rules, 1994. Rule 12 of the DRAT Procedure Rules reads as under:

Bare perusal of the Rules will show that in one Memorandum of Appeal different reliefs of more than one cause of action cannot be sought for. Although exception is curved out to the effect that if the reliefs prayed for are consequential in nature, the same can be claimed. Perusal of the order dated 8.6.2010, as quoted above, will show that the prayer of the Certificate Holder Bank for appointment of Receiver of the Committee of Management was allowed. Relevant part of the order reads as under:

Subsequent orders are not consequential orders of the order dated 8.6.2010 as the order dated 15.6.2010 is an order passed by the Presiding Officer directing the Recovery Officer to cause necessary amendment in the Certificate and include TPG as Certificate Holder No. 2 and to proceed further in accordance with law. Thereafter, different orders were passed by the Presiding Officer but none of those orders can be said to be orders consequential to the order dated 8.6.2010. Hence the contention of the Learned Counsel for Appellant regarding applicability of Rule 12 of the DRAT Procedure Rules could not be accepted. Instant appeal can only be treated as an appeal against order dated 8.6.2010.

Certain submissions are also made by the Learned Counsel for Appellant regarding validity of the Assignment Agreement in favour of TPG. Although, at this stage, that is not to be looked into by this Appellate Tribunal. However, in view of the judgment of the passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 17^th May, 2024 in SLP Civil No. 7315 of 2021 and 7316 of 2021 SLP Civil No. 7315-7316 of 2021 (General Secretary, Government of Orissa Bharat Properties and Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) & Others), this issue is not res integra. In paragraph 34 of the judgment wherein it was held that TPG is an Assignee in terms of the Assignment Agreement dated 17.9.2009 with UCO Bank.

Now the only issue to be looked into remains as to whether the instant appeal can be proceeded with or is liable to be disposed of being infructuous.

As has been held in the earlier part of the judgment that the instant appeal is preferred against order No. 48 dated 8.6.2010 passed by DRT-I, Kolkata in T.A. 216 of 1994 passed in Recovery Proceedings No. 142 of 2003. Perusal of the order dated 8.6.2010 would reveal that it is an interlocutory order passed in the pending Recovery Proceedings. Recovery Proceedings is withdrawn by the Certificate Holder before the Recovery Officer. Recovery Officer, in its order dated 25.11.2025, records that TPG prayed for withdrawal of the Recovery Certificate in compliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.5.2024 in SLP Civil No. 7315-7316 of 2021 (General Secretary, Government of Orissa Bharat Properties and Mechanical Engineers Limited (In Liquidation) & Others). Accordingly, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the matter to be placed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT. DRT-I, Kolkata vide order dated 9.12 2025 ordered the R.P. No. 142 of 2003 disposed of as withdrawn. Consequently, Recovery Officer, vide order dated 23.12.2025, closed the matter.

Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Recovery Proceedings have been closed behind his back without providing him copy of the application for withdrawal of the Recovery Proceedings.

Per contra, Learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 2 would submit that the Appellants are not a party in the Recovery Proceedings; they have no locus in the Recovery Proceedings. The Recovery Proceedings was withdrawn in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

As far as the issue of right of audience to the Appellant, either before the Recovery Officer or before the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kolkata, is concerned, admittedly, Appellants are not a party in the Recovery Proceedings, hence, they have no right of audience before the Recovery Officer or the Presiding Officer. Further, the Certificate Holder has withdrawn the Recovery Proceedings in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court; hence, there was no requirement of serving copy of the application of withdrawal to the Appellants.

On the basis of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that both the appeals filed against orders dated 8.6.2010 and order dated 23.2.2012 in pending R.P. No. 142 of 2003, arising out of T.A. 216 of 1994 and the proceedings of the R.P. Case No. 142 of 2003 has already been withdrawn by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kolkata vide order dated 9.12.2025, accordingly, both the appeals become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.