Appeal No. 34 of 2008. Case: Vitro Pharma Products Ltd. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. [ARCIL]. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals
|Case Number:||Appeal No. 34 of 2008|
|Party Name:||Vitro Pharma Products Ltd. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. [ARCIL]|
|Judges:||K. J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer|
|Issue:||Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 29, 30|
|Judgement Date:||September 23, 2008|
|Court:||Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals|
K. J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
1. The Certificate Debtor in Recovery Proceeding [R.P.] No. 224 of 2003 has filed this Appeal for declaration that the public auction of Plot No. 89 A-B, Govt. Industrial Estate, Charkop, Kandivali West, Mumbai 400 067 is illegal. The Appellant has come out with case that Punjab National Bank [PNB] who was the original Certificate Holder, for recovery of Rs. 8.72 Crores and odd amount, had assigned its debt to the Respondent. The Appellant as such came on the record whereafter PNB could not conduct the sale but did the same. The second contention is that the learned Recovery Officer appointed valuer from Alibag for valuation of the property located at Mumbai instead of appointing valuer from Mumbai. The valuation of the property is also said to be shockingly low. The Appellant has stated that earlier also efforts were made to sale the property at a throw away price which according to the Appellant constitutes fraud. The next contention is that the proclamation of sale and public notice for sale of the property was published in the newspaper Dt. 28 & 29 of March 2008. The Appellant received it on 31.03.2008. The 30 days period expired on 30.04.2008. But, the learned Recovery Officer held the sale on 28.04.2008. The contention is also that there was no attachment under Rule 48 to 50 of II Schedule of Income-tax Act of the property. Yet the receiver was appointed. The furthermore contention is that as per Rule 64-B of the II Schedule to Income-tax Act the property should be sold within 3 years but the sale herein was held beyond 3 years. The contention is also that various outstandings of Sales Tax, Income-tax and many statutory authorities are there but were not disclosed at the time of sale. Thus, the sale is said to be bad in law and is sought to be set aside.
2. By reply in the nature of affidavit of Mr. Sham Prasad [Exh. 9], the Respondent resisted the Appeal. The Appeal is said to have been filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive to delay the R.P. and defeat the claim of the Respondent. It is stated that there is no illegality as alleged by the Appellant or otherwise in the sale. The sold property was the Respondent's security and was so accordingly declared by this Tribunal in the Recovery Certificate. Therefore, the limitation of 3 years does not apply. In any case since the attachment was made in 2006, the sale was well within limitation of 3 years. The dismissal of the Appeal...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL