IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
M/s Adya Infracon Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9751 of 2023 & CM Appl. 37383 of 2023 & CM Appl. 37384 of 2023
Decided On : 25-07-2023
Recovery Certificate - Jurisdictional Dispute - The court clarified the jurisdictional dispute arising from the reallocation of jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunals and directed the concerned Recovery Officer to decide the petitioner's application expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the attachment and subsequent orders related to a property, claiming that it did not belong to the debtor against whom the recovery certificate was issued.
Finding of the Court:
The court clarified the jurisdictional issue and directed the Recovery Officer to decide the petitioner's application expeditiously.
Issues: Jurisdictional dispute, legality of orders related to property attachment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the order of the Bombay High Court did not stay the notification reallocating the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunals, allowing the tribunal to proceed with the matter.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Recovery Officer to decide the petitioner's application expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1 whereby, the property bearing no. 113, Park Street, Poddar Point, 8th Floor, Kolkata-700016 (hereafter `the property') was attached. The petitioner also impugns subsequent orders passed for proclamation of sale and sale of the said property.
2. It is the petitioner's case that orders passed in respect of the said property are illegal as the said property does not belong to the Debtor [M/s Polar Pharma (India) Limited] against whom the recovery certificate has been issued.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has also filed an application before the concerned Recovery Officer seeking recall of the order dated 24.08.2020 and other orders, however, the said application has not been heard. She submits that the Recovery Officer is not taking up the application on account of lack of clarity regarding the jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery. She states that in terms of the Notification dated 04.10.2022, the proceeding relating to Recovery Certificate no.88/2016 against M/s Polar Pharma (India) Limited was transferred from the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1 to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, however, the Notification dated 04.10.2022 has been stayed by the Bombay High Court by an order dated 17.11.2022 passed in WPC No.11164/2022 captioned Ishwarlal Shankarlal Lalwani (Jain) v. The Union of India, through the Chief Secretary.
4. In M/s Ral Nutralife Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 8290/2023 decided on 19.07.2023 and in Falak Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Authorised Agent Mr. Mohd Salim Khatri v. Punjab National Bank Ltd. & Ors., WP(C) No. 8923/2023 decided on 18.07.2023, this Court had examined the question whether the order of the Bombay High Court was operative in respect of S.O. 4718(E) dated 04.10.2022 whereby the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunals was reallocated. This Court had clarified that the said order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Bombay High Court in WP(C) No.11164/2022 did not stay the said Notification dated 04.10.2022 and there was no impediment for the Debts Recovery Tribunal to proceed with the matter in terms of S.O. 4718(E) dated 04.10.2022.
5. In view of the above, the concerned Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II is directed to take up the petitioner's application and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from date.
6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
7. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this petition.
Clarification of jurisdictional dispute and direction for expeditious decision by the Recovery Officer.
Timely disposal of miscellaneous application, continuation of interim direction, liberty to seek appropriate remedies
A party must exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking intervention from a writ court, ensuring respect for legal processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for when there is an efficacious and effective relief availab....
The Recovery Officer lacks jurisdiction to sell property not belonging to the defaulter, and aggrieved parties must pursue statutory remedies to assert their claims.
A third party can challenge a Debt Recovery Certificate, and a claim under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Act is maintainable even without an attachment, affirming the right to assert ownership of propert....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of writ jurisdiction by the borrowers and the consequences of their actions on the auction-purchaser and the Recovery Officer, leading....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.