S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. In this writ petition, the Punjab and Sind Bank (hereafter PSB) is aggrieved by an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (the Appellate Tribunal) dated 23.3.2011 accepting the First Respondents (the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation or MMTC hereafter) plea that the mortgage inuring in its favour had to prevail over the PSB’s claim in execution of a money decree and directing that proceeds from the sale of a property by the Recovery Officer be used first to satisfy MMTC’s claim.

2. The brief facts are that on 21.5.1993, MMTC extended credit facilities to the Second Respondent, M/s. Himanshu Jewellers (hereafter Himanshu) a partnership firm acting through one of its partners, the third respondent (Jagdish Kumar), for jewellery export, in terms of its prevailing policies. The loan was encapsulated in a written agreement and Himanshu was given packing credit facilities for the sum of Rs. 29,05,485/-. This agreement contained an arbitration clause. The arrangement entailed co-ordination between MMTC and manufacturing units such as Himanshu; it involved MMTC securing credit from its banker and then passing it on to the unit, which was then to export jewellery in terms of the prevailing import-export policy. The amounts availed of by the units were to be repaid with agreed interest. Claiming that Himanshu had defaulted inasmuch as the full payment of the amounts with interest at agreed rates had not been made, MMTC invoked the arbitration clause on 19.6.1996. A three member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted before which MMTC claimed about Rs. 29 lacs with interest and costs.

3. Himanshu contested the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal and denied its liability to MMTC. After considering the terms of the agreement, the invoices in question and the payments made by Himanshu, the Arbitral Tribunal by a plurality of opinions dated 21.12.2002 upheld MMTC’s claim to the tune of Rs. 14,73,973/-. Each arbitrator (Mr. Justice S. Ranganathan (Retd.) Mr. Justice P.N. Khanna (Retd) and Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate) rendered separate findings. Mr. Justice Ranganathan held that Himanshu was liable to pay MMTC Rs. 14,73,973/- Mr. Justice Khanna concurred with that award. Mr. Tulsi, on the other hand, held that Himanshu was not liable. In the result, by the award dated 21.12.2002, Himanshu was held liable to pay Rs. 14,73,973/- plus interest and costs.

4. Meanwhile, unbeknown to MMTC and independent of Himanshu’s agreement with it, the latter had approached PSB for credit facilities, in 1994. PSB granted Packing credit facility to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs, Foreign Bill Purchase facility to the tune of Rs. 40 lakhs and Bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 60 lakhs. PSB alleges that the borrower, i.e. Himanshu failed to maintain financial discipline in regard to repayment of dues. These defaults constrained PSB to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) claiming Rs. 1,39,91,244/- with overdue interest at 25% p.a. with quarterly rests and future interest, as overdue payments, against Himanshu in an application (O.A. 330 of 1997) dated 23.5.1997. This application was allowed by final order dated 11.12.1998 (hereafter the DRT decree).

5. Since the arbitral award in favour of MMTC had the force of a decree by virtue of provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it applied for execution of such decree before the competent civil court by way of Ex. No. 347/06. On 18.11.2006, the civil court directed auction of property No. 2778/2779, Gali No. 20, First Floor, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh (hereafter the disputed property). PSB, in the meanwhile had independently moved the Recovery Officer in terms of provisions of Section 25 (a) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereafter the Recovery Act). The Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi, who has jurisdiction over such proceedings, on 4.4.2007 directed the second and third respondents to disclose details of the loa