At, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi
By, J. M. MALIK (CHAIRPERSON)
The Judgment was delivered by : J. M. Malik (Chairperson)
I have heard the counsel for the appellant on admission of this appeal. The appellant, RIICO, in this appeal is a third party which is a registered company, a Rajasthan Government Undertaking established to promote the industrial set up in the State. It had allotted a plot measuring 8000 sq.mts. in Industrial Area Bapi, District Dausa for processing marble unit on 29th November, 1995, in favour of the borrower Krystal Stones Export Ltd.
2. As per the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 9th February, 1996, the borrower was to initiate the construction of the industrial unit within one year from the date of allotment and was required to complete the construction within three years. It was also stipulated that in case of breach of the above said terms and conditions, the plot would be automatically resumed in favour of the appellant RIICO and the lease would stand automatically terminated. With the above said conditions, borrower was permitted to mortgage the property.
3. There was breach in the above said terms and conditions. The appellant issued a show-cause notice to the borrower for cancellation of lease deed on 13th January, 1998. The appellant also raised a demand of Rs. 1,10,578/- and of Rs. 1,21,953/- on account of service charges, development charges and economic rent, but the same were not paid. The appellant cancelled the lease deed on 31st May, 2000 and required the borrower to surrender the lease deed vide its letter dated 27th July, 2000.
4. In the meantime, it transpired that recovery proceedings were pending against the borrower. The borrower had mortgaged the above said property in favour of IDBI Bank. During the pendency of the case, the appellant moved an application before the DRT stating that the said property belonged to the appellant. The appellant moved an application for being impleaded as a necessary party in the proceedings. A recovery certificate was issued by the learned DRT vide its order dated 16th August, 2002.
5. It is interesting to note that the appellant did not file any appeal against rejection of its application for impleadment. However, the appellant filed objections before the learned Recovery Officer on 4th February, 2003. Those objections were also dismissed by the Recovery Officer vide his order dated 7th June, 2006. The main reason assigned by the Recovery Officer for rejection of the objections was that he could not go behind the decree or recovery certificate. In support of his finding he cited the judgments in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank, (2004) S.C.C. 406 and judgment of this Tribunal in the case titled Prestolite v. UBI, 1 (2006) B.C. 68 (DRAT, Delhi).
6. The appeal filed against that order was also dismissed and the learned DRT placed reliance on a Bombay High Court judgment reported in Dr. Anil Nand Kishor Tibrewala v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., 1 (2007) BC 6 (DB).
7. As a matter of fact, the order passed by the learned DRT on 16th August, 2002 has attained finality. It cannot be called into question at this belated stage. Secondly, the appellant had itself given permission to the borrower to mortgage the property in question. Last but not the least, it is a dispute between the two private parties, that is, the appellant on the one hand and the borrower on the other. The grievance of the bank already stands redressed. In case the appellant has grievance against the borrower, it should approach the proper forum which is authorised to redress its grievance.
8. The instant appeal is without merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.
Copies of this order be furnished to the appellant as per law and be also sent to the learned DRT forthwith.