JUDGMENT :

This writ application has been preferred challenging the initiation of the proceeding under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1993”) read with Rule 18 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1993’), by the Respondent – Bank against the petitioner.

2. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by Respondent No. 2 – Bank and has prayed for declaring the impugned order as null and void.

3. The Facts in brief are as under:-

(i) The Respondent – Bank filed an Original Application bearing No. 24 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal or DRT”) for realization of a sum of Rs. 34,01,934.21 with interest and cost. It is stated that during pendency of the Original Application, the petitioner entered into a compromise before the Special Lok Adalat organized by the Tribunal, in the said Lok Adalat the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 27 Lakhs against outstanding dues on compromise. In terms of the compromise, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application, the entire payment was to be made by the end of September without interest and if amount remains unpaid the same shall be liable to be paid latest by 17.01.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the order dated 17.01.2010. Thereafter the learned Tribunal disposed off Original Application No. 24 of 2008 on 29.03.2011 and a certificate for recovery of Rs. 34,01,934.21 together with pendente lite and future interest at contractual rate from 01.02.2008 till full and final realization of actual payments was issued in favour of the Bank (Annexure – 2 to the writ application).

(ii) For execution of the certificate of recovery a recovery proceeding being R.P. Case No. 40 of 2011 has been registered before the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. It is stated that during the pendency of the recovery proceeding, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 79/2012 challenging the recovery proceeding itself showing that the certificate cannot be executed and in terms of the award of Special Lok Adalat, the petitioner can at most recover Rs. 27 Lakhs. This contention of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 25.04.2012, but a fresh direction was issued in the Miscellaneous Application saying that the petitioner would pay 40% of the settlement amount of Rs. 27 Lakhs within 15 days and the rest shall be paid within three months in equal monthly instalment with simple Prime Lending Rate (PLR) interest. Copy of the order dated 25.04.2012 passed in M.A. No. 79/2012 is annexed as Annexure ‘3’ to the writ application.

(iii) Admittedly once again the petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 25.04.2012 and upon failure of the petitioner the Recovery Officer proceeded with the recovery proceeding and auction sale of the mortgaged property was also notified. The proprietor once again filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal with a cheque of Rs. 8 Lakhs and prayed for further time to pay the amount in installments. The learned Tribunal, once again passed the order dated 19.07.2012, by which the auction was deferred and a last chance was given to the applicant M/s Samay Vatika through it’s Proprietor, to clear the balance amount with simple 9% interest from the date of default. Two months time was granted to make payment of the amount in installment and further liberty was granted that on failure of the petitioner to pay the rest amount, he must pay 80% amount within time and another 20% amount within another one month positively. The proprietor applicant was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-as legal expenses and also cost of paper publication.

Since the proprietor failed to pay the balance amount, once again a Miscellaneous Application being M.A. No. 378 of 2013 was filed and this time the DRT/Tribun