IMPORTANT POINT
Sale certificate loses significance in case mortgage itself is not valid.

P.K. Bhasin, Chairperson—These appeals have been knit together for being heard and decided as a composite case with the consensus amongst the Counsel for all the parties on questions common to both the cases under scrutiny before this Tribunal. So, by this common order I shall be disposing of both these appeals between the same parties which have arisen under common facts and circumstances though are against separate judgments of the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed on 12.2.2014 in two separate Original Applications filed by the Global Trust Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the GTB’) under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RDDBFI Act’) against the same set of defendants who are now respondents 2 and 3 in both these appeals. Since the points involved and urged in both the appeals by the Counsel for the parties were common and the appeals were heard also analogously the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

2. Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (‘UPSIDC’ in short), is fighting this legal battle to save huge piece of its land ad measuring 188.33 acres in the Industrial Area at Masuri Gulawati Road in village Dehra Amarpur, Lodha, Raoli, Sheikhpur, Khichri Pargana Dasna, Tahsil Hapur, Distt. Ghaziabad from the clutches of the respondents herein out whom respondent No. 2 M/s Wise “ Industrial Farks Limited allegedly had mortgaged the said land without its permission in favour of the GTB, which had amalgamated with Oriental Bank of Commerce sometime in the year 2004 during the pendency of the O.A. and which is now respondent No. 1 in these appeals, to secure the repayment of loans of crores of rupees granted to it as well as respondent No. 3 herein by the GTB during the years 1997 2001 and which land now stands sold to respondent No. 4 herein (auction purchaser) M/s K.JS Concrete (P) Ltd. in execution of the Recovery Certificates obtained by Oriental Bank of Commerce from the Debts Recovery Tribunal-11, Delhi (‘DRT in short’) on 12.2.2014 in the two Original Applications filed by the GTB. The recovery certificate issued in O.A. No. 38/2004 was for a sum of Rs. 51,34,74,787/- with interest thereon @ 18.50% p.a. with quarterly rests from 8.4.2004 onwards until recovery and the recovery certificate issued in O.A. No. 37/ 2004 on 12 2.2014 was for a sum of Rs. 2,79,29,317/- with interest etc. Respondents 2 and 3 herein were defendants in the two O.As. and they were made liable for payment jointly and severally.

3. The grievance of the appellant UPSIDC to whom no relief was granted in the O.As. for the protection of its land (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the mortgaged land ) has been that despite the fact that it had not granted any permission as the owner/superior lessor of the mortgaged land to the lessee, respondent No. 2 herein to mortgage the same in favour of any Bank and even lease in favour of the said Company stood cancelled in the year 2002 and possession also taken back by UPSIDC and there were no leasehold rights in the mortgaged property subsisting in favour of the lessee (respondent No. 2 herein), which could be auctioned but still 188.33 acres of land belonging to UPSIDC has been shown on papers to have been sold in auction to respondent No. 4 to discharge the loan liability of the respondents 2 and 3 towards the GTB and that had necessitated filing of the present appeal so that the so called auction purchaser does not lodge any sort of claim with UPSIDC relying upon sale documents issued by the Recovery Officer mechanically. The grievance of the UPSIDC also appears to be that the auction purchaser which could not have obtained leasehold rights in the mortgaged lands through normal channel now claims to have acquired the same through the auction proceedings initiated at the instance