JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:—Rule. Respondent No. 1 waives service. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been served. However, they have not appeared in the courts below as well. Therefore, in our view, petition can be disposed of at this stage. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent.

2. Two questions arise for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order dated 9th February, 2004 in Misc. Appeal No. 396 of 2003 passed by the learned Chairperson of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal).

3. The questions are:

i) Is transfer of an immovable property in contravention of a prohibitionary or injunction order of a Court illegal or void;

ii) Whether and to what extent, the procedure under Rule 11 of Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable in execution of a recovery certificate issued under section 19(7) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short RDB Act)

4. To answer these questions, it is necessary to set out the facts. Petitioner No. 1 is a partner of petitioner No. 2, a firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Respondent No. 1 is a nationalised bank which instituted proceedings for recovery of its dues. Respondent No. 2 is a proprietary firm of respondent No. 3. They are original defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are original defendant Nos. 3 and 4.

5. It is not in dispute that a suit being Suit No. 1523 of 1994 was filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on the Original Side of this Court. In this suit plaintiffs claimed a decree in the sum of Rs. 50,01,885.40. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that on 3rd November, 1988, an agreement to lease was entered into by City Industrial and Development Corporation (CIDCO) in favour of respondent No. 2. The lease was in respect of property being warehouse Plot No. 177, admeasuring 900 sq.mtrs. situate at Kalamboli, Vashi, Navi Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as said property). In pursuance of the request to grant loan, respondent No. 2 had on 30th November, 1988 deposited titled deeds in respect of said property with respondent No. 1. It is contended that title deeds were deposited with an intention to create equitable mortgage in respect of said property in favour of respondent No. 1. As a result of persistent defaults committed by respondent No. 2 in repayment of loan, respondent No. 1 instituted Suit No. 1523 of 1994 on the Original Side of this Court for recovery of aforesaid sum along with other reliefs.

6. It is pertinent to note that for protecting its security, respondent No. 1 bank moved an application for temporary injunction by way of Notice of Motion in the said suit. This Court (R.M. Lodha, J.), after hearing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 granted ad interim order of injunction on 6th March, 1998 in terms of prayer Clause (b) which reads as under:

"(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendant No. 2 be restrained by himself, his servants and agents or otherwise howsoever by an order and injunction of this Honble Court from in any manner disposing of or parting with possession of or alienating or entering or transferring or creating any right, title or interest in the said immovable property described in Exh. E to the plaint and in respect of the hypothecated goods and book debts described in the Deed of Hypothecation being Exh. 15 to the plaint and/or from recovering or realising the book debts or any part thereof."

7. On the establishment of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai the suit was transferred to its file and was numbered as O.A. No. 1277 of 1999.

8. O.A. No. 1277 of 1999, was decreed ex parte by DRT-II, Mumbai on 6th July, 2001. In pursuance of the same, recovery certificate was issued by the Tribunal.

9. It appears that during pendency of injunction order passed by this Court, respondent No. 2 transferred and assigned its lease hold rights in the said property in favour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document