Shri NishantBajaj & Anr. vs HDFC Bank & Anr.

The instant application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal due to the reasons as stated in the application although the appellant has not mentioned the number of days of delays in filing the appeal.

After considering all facts, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is allowed accordingly.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to order dated 18.01.2022 passed by DRT-II, Delhi in Appeal No.20/2021 titled as Nishant Bajaj and another V HDFC Bank and another whereby the appeal bearing no.20/2021 filed by the appellant against the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by Recovery Officer was dismissed. It is reflecting from the record that Recovery Officer-II, attached with the office of DRT-II, Delhi in R.C. No.130/2017 titled as HDFC Bank V. M/s SidhkarIspat Private Limited and others has dismissed the claim of the appellants who are stated to be auction purchasers regarding the plant and machinery along with the property auctioned.

Sh. Sagar Saxena, Advocate for the appellant during the course of the argument, has referred the impugned order dated 18.01.2022 besides the letter dated 20.01.2021. Sh. Sagar Saxena, Advocate after referring the letter dated 20.01.2021 issued by the respondent no.1 to the appellants, mentioned that the subject land also included the plant and machinery installed therein. It is argued that the subject property which are purchased by the appellants being the auction purchasers also included the plant and machinery installed over there. In these circumstances, Sh. Sagar, Advocate argued that the impugned order be set aside and it be held that the auction land also included plant and machinery installed over there.

Sh. Amit Dhall, Advocate for respondent no.2 who is stated to be the borrower defended the impugned order dated 18.01.2022 and the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by Recovery Officer-II, DRT-II, Delhi. He referred the sale proclamation of sale under Rule 52(2) of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 in R.C. No.130/2017 titled as HDFC Bank V. M/s SidhkarIspat Private Limited and others dated 21.08.2019 wherein the description of the property was mentioned. He stated that as per the description of the property the plant and machinery were not included in the auction land. He also referred the order dated 02.11.2021 and in particular para-8 & 12. The perusal of para-8 of order dated 02.11.2021 referred the valuation report filed by the respondent no.1 vide Diary No.1185 dated 25.01.2019 and observed that there was no mention of plant and machinery in the valuation report not even in the form of scrap. It was further observed that the valuation has been conducted for the immovable property only and the sale notice dated 21.08.2019 only contains the description of immovable property. The perusal of para-12 reflects that DRT-II, Delhi has not accepted the contention of the auction purchaser regarding the inclusion of plant and machinery with the auction property.

The perusal of impugned order dated 18.01.2022 reflects that DRT-II, Delhi observed that the Recovery Officer has confirmed the sale only for the immovable property and other plant and machinery have not been sold. DRT-II, Delhi also observed that it appeared that the respondent no.1 has given the details of plant and machinery as a trustee which was seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellants. The perusal of record more particularly the sale certificated dated 21.08.2019 and the observation as made in para-8 of the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Recovery Officer-II, clearly reflects that the plant and machinery were not included in the auction property. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants are without any factual basis.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by DRT-II, Delhi which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.