The judgment establishes the importance of upholding statutory provisions, particularly Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, to protect the interests of banks and financial institutions.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. By the detailed order dated 28.02.2019, this Court has dismissed the present writ petition. We have observed in the said order that the order passed by Mr. G.V.K. Raju, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 10.01.2019 shocks our conscience, and we wish to examine as to what steps are called for at our end, if any. For that purpose, we kept the matter for today while requesting Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Senior Advocate to assist us on this aspect.

2. At this stage itself, we may observe that we are not dealing with the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the DRT as an appellate forum. That appeal has been entertained by the learned DRAT. We are also not sitting in judicial review of the said order passed by the DRT. We are also conscious of the fact that we do not exercise the power of administrative superintendence over the DRT under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, and our superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restricted to judicial superintendence only.

3. Before we proceed further, we may indicate as to what is it in the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II Mr. G.V.K. Raju that shocks our conscience and drives us to pass this order.

4. The DRT was aware of the fact that the applications for attachment before judgment, of the State Bank of India, were pending before it when it passed the order dated 10.01.2019. It was also aware of the fact that the claim of State Bank of India was over Rs. 55 crores; that the property at Preet Vihar had fetched only about Rs. 10.60 crores; that the OTS offer of State Bank of India stood withdrawn as respondent no. 3 had failed to honour its terms. The DRT was aware of the fact that the Maharani Bagh property belonged to the Corporate Guarantor of SBI i.e. respondent No. 8, and that the liability of respondent No. 8 qua State Bank of India was co-extensive with that of the principal borrower, i.e. respondent No. 3.

5. A perusal of the order dated 10.01.2019 reflects extremely poorly on the competence of the Presiding Officer, even if one were to give him the benefit of the doubt that while passing the order dated 10.01.2019, he was not swayed by any other extraneous consideration. We cannot fathom as to how the learned Presiding Officer could have permitted sale of the entire Maharani Bagh property, and permitted respondent No. 8 to receive and appropriate the entire sale consideration after settling the account of Kotak Mahindra Bank, when the attachment applications of the SBI were pending. By directing that those applications would be heard later than 10.01.2019 - when the order was passed by the learned Presiding Officer modifying the order dated 05.01.2019, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT rendered those applications infructuous, since the transfer of the property and receipt & appropriation of the sale proceeds was allowed to proceed without any limitation/ condition. The passing of the order dated 10.01.2019 presented a fait accompli to the SBI. Even without consideration of the two applications for attachment before judgment, those applications were rendered infructuous and were, as good as, dismissed.

6. Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 may be referred to at this stage. Sub-Section (3A) of Section 19 requires the applicant to:

"(a) state particulars of the debt secured by security interest over properties or assets belonging to any of the defendants and the estimated value of such securities.

(b) if the estimated value of securities is not sufficient to satisfy the debt claimed, state particulars of any other properties or assets owned by any of the defendants, if any.

(c) if the estimated value of such other assets is not sufficient to recover the debt, seek an order directing the defendant to disclose to the Tribunal particulars of other properties or assets owned by the defendants."

7. In the present case, when it filed the Original Application, the SBI a