Appeal No. 10 of 2003. Case: Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Recovery Officer, D.R.T.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberAppeal No. 10 of 2003
CounselFor Appellant: Vinay Shankar, Adv. and For Respondents: None
JudgesRam Prakash, Presiding Officer
IssueRecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 30; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Rules 52 to 63
CitationI (2004) BC 23
Judgement DateAugust 26, 2003
CourtKolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals


Ram Prakash, J. (Presiding Officer)

  1. This is an appeal presented by the appellant (Oriental Bank of Commerce) under Section 30 of the R.D.B. Act, 1993, (Act 1993) against the order dated 29.7.2003 passed by the learned Recovery Officer in D.R.C. case No. 167/02, Lucknow in reference Oriental Bank or Commerce v. Nanak Chandra Agencies and Ors.

    Brief facts of the case are:

  2. The appellant has filed an Original Application No. 184/1999 against M/s. Nanak Chand Agencies and others (JD/defendants). The O.A. was allowed by D.R.T., Jabalpur dated 15.11.99 and accordingly Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs. 33,94,465/- plus cost and interest was issued and D.R.C. proceedings were initiated before D.R.T, Allahabad and subsequently transferred to D.R.T., Lucknow where the aforesaid D.R.C. case was registered.

  3. When the aforesaid amount was not recovered, the Bank (Appellant) applied for the sale of the mortgaged property owned by J.D. Nos. 2, 3 and 5 respectively, in Khata No. 99 Khasra No. 221, Kuberpur Atmadpur, Distt. Agra. The valuation report of the same property was also submitted before the learned Recovery Officer by the appellant Bank to the tune of Rs. 20.00 lakhs. On the basis of valuation report and other facts, the learned Recovery Officer fixed reserve price of the property to be auctioned to the tune of Rs. 19,83,000/- and thereafter auction notice was published as per the terms of intent of the Act. Auction notice was issued on the basis of notice of proclamation of sale dated 22.4.2003. Relevant documents are annexed as Exhibits A1 and A12. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the learned Recovery Officer who conducted the auction proceedings properly on 6.6.2003. One M/s. Agrawal Clearing (P.) Ltd. through its Director Mr. Udai Kumar Agrawal offered the highest bid amount of Rs. 19.95 lakhs and as no other bid was higher to the bid of the aforesaid person, the Advocate Commissioner finalized the bid in favour of the highest bidder and accepted the bid amount of Rs. 19.95 lakhs and bid was finalized in his favour. Immediately thereafter 25% of the bid amount was deposited by the auction purchaser and accepted by the recovery wing. The appellant has filed copy of the auction proceedings which is Exhibit A/3. The remaining entire bid amount has already been deposited and received in the aforesaid D.R.C case and only sale was to be confirmed.

  4. After completion of the auction proceedings, third party objection was filed by copartners of the remaining portion of the property against which objection was filed by the appellant Bank for rejection of the 3rd party objection. The contention of the 3rd party was that the reserve price of the property was very excessive and it should be revised. The appellant has filed Annexures A/4 and A/5, the objection and the reply presented by the Bank.

  5. It is alleged by the appellant that learned Recovery Officer though have not taken a cognizance of the 3rd party objection, but without any solid and cogent reasons and ground declined to accept the amount of bid of Rs. 19.95 lakhs accepted by the Advocate Commissioner and ordered for re-auction of the property and further directed to return the amount of the bid to the auction purchaser. A certified copy of the impugned order has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT