9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as being without jurisdiction and claim that on such ground the order would be amenable to a challenge in this extraordinary jurisdiction despite such order being appellable under Section 30 of the said Act of 1993 before the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Certain facts need to be noticed at the outset. The respondent bank instituted proceedings under Section 19 of the said Act of 1993 before the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained a certificate therein. The bank applied under Section 25 of the said Act of 1993 to execute the certificate and obtained an order in the nature of attachment relating to an immovable property on January 4, 2013. Pursuant to such order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court. In an appeal carried from the order passed on such petition, the property was ultimately sold to the petitioner company herein and the sale was confirmed by an order of May 3, 2007. The sale notice had been published in newspapers on March 13, 2007. Though it appears to be somewhat hazy as to how a property was sold in an appeal arising out of a petition challenging the bank s action taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, nothing need be said on such aspect of the matter since the connected orders passed in the appeal are not available and, in any event, the recovery officer could not have, directly or indirectly, set aside the order of sale passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the quasi-judicial authority. The petitioners also rely on a judgment reported at (1998) 6 SCC 658 for the proposition that in course of exercising the authority as the recovery officer has in this case, such officer had only to assess whether the applicant before such officer was in possession of the property in question in his own right and not adjudicate upon the applicant s title to the property. Under Section 29 of the said Act of 1993, the rules in Schedules II and III to the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been made applicable to the said Act of 1993. Rule 11 of Schedule II to the Income Tax Act provides for the extent of investigation by a tax recover officer. Rule 11(4) permits the tax recovery officer to go into the question of po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided on the conduct of the bank s constituent in furnishing copy title deeds to UCO Bank at a time when the respondent bank was in possession of the original title deeds. In the absence of UCO Bank, which could have had no further interest in the matter since it had already received the payment, the debt recovery officer held that the mortgage created by the bank s constituent with UCO Bank was void and whatever followed therefrom was liable to be struck down. In a convoluted way the order of the debt recovery officer has the effect of negating the Division Bench order of this Court unmindful of the fact that this Court exercises superintendence over the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution. Since it is evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
