At, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
For the Appellant: Sanjeev Bhandari, Jaya Goyal, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, R9, Karan Khanna, Ashmita Kumar, R16, S. Choudhary, Advocates.
P.K. Bhasin, Chairperson, J.
1. Today, learned Counsel for the appellant seeks permission to awithdraw this appeal and also makes a prayer of return of the amount which it has deposited in this Tribunal in compliance of the direction given to it to show its bona fides in filing this appeal against some order passed by the DRT in Bank's O.A. in which it was not a party. He also submitted that now that he is seeking permission to withdraw this appeal, he will urge this Tribunal to look into the legality and propriety of the impugned order of the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT in permitting sale of the mortgaged asset in the midst of trial of the O.A. without even having returned any finding regarding mortgage etc. and therefore he would request this Tribunal to invoke power of superintendence which includes ‘judicial superintendence’ also over the judicial orders passed by the Tribunal below which are under the jurisdiction of this DRAT. Counsel for the Bank as well as purchaser of the property in question have no objection if this prayer being made on behalf of the appellant is accepted.
2. This appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The appellant be refunded the amount of Rs. 5.20 crores which it had deposited, along with interest accrued till date, if the money was kept in a fixed deposit.
3. Now that nothing survives to be examined by this Tribunal at the instance of the appellant, the question which needs to be answered is whether in fact this is a fit case for exercising power of judicial superintendence in respect of the order dated 4.1.2018 passed by the learned DRT in the Bank’s O.A. and to set it aside. Prima facie, it does appear to this Tribunal that the procedure adopted by the DRT and the power exercised by it directing sale of a mortgaged property in favour of a private individual in the midst of trial in the Bank’s O.A. despite the fact that the Bank was not agreeable for sale of the property in question for a price of Rs. 5.20 crores and which ultimately came to be permitted to be sold by the DRT even at the lesser price of Rs. 5 crores and though the private purchaser’s offer to buy it was for Rs. 5.20 crores, does require examination by this Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 17 (A) of the Recovery of Debts and Insolvency Act, 1993. Therefore, the Registry shall now prepare a separate file of ‘suo motu proceedings’ in respect of legality and propriety of the order dated 4.1.2018 of the Tribunal below. Since the Bank as well as the purchaser in whose favour the property was permitted to be sold by the DRT may be prejudicially affected by any decision if taken against the legality of the aforesaid order, they will be at liberty to defend that order as and when this suo motu matter is taken up for hearing. The file of the present appeal shall simply be n
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ow placed before the Tribunal as and when suo motu matter is taken up for hearing. List this matter for hearing on 7.8.2018. 4. Since the O.A. before the DRT is now fixed for hearing on 14.8.2018, its record shall be retained here only till the next date of hearing. Appeal disposed of.