Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC does not protect properties from attachment if they are mortgaged, reinforcing that exemptions are limited and cannot be claimed by debtors with substantial assets.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioner has preferred this present writ petition to assail the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the DRAT), New Delhi in Appeal No. 459 of 2016, titled `Ms. Sujata Kapoor v Union Bank of India & Ors.'.

2. Arguments were initially heard and judgment reserved on 02.04.2019. The judgment could not be pronounced earlier. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for directions on 06.12.2019. On that day, counsel for the petitioner appeared and it was adjourned to 11.12.2019 to enable him to recapitulate his submission, which he did. Consequently, the judgment was reserved.

3. The mainstay of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner - to ward off the attachment and sale of the property bearing No. 3, Racquet Court Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `said property'), is the protection afforded to a Judgment Debtor/Certificate Debtor by Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) as applicable to Delhi. Thus, the scope and interpretation of the said provision arises for consideration before us. Before we proceed, we may take note of a few admitted facts, and facts emerging from the record. We may observe that the petitioner has selectively filed documents before us. The petitioner has not disputed the factual position as recorded in, and emerging from the orders passed by the Recovery Officer (R.O.), the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the DRAT. We have, therefore, proceeded to consider the matter in the light of facts found in the orders passed by the said Authorities/Tribunals.

4. Late Sh. B.R. Dougall (BRD in short) [described as respondent No.4 in the present writ petition], undisputedly, was the owner of the said property having acquired the same on his own. M/s Atul Food Products Limited obtained a loan from the respondent Union Bank of India (UBI for short). Amongst others, BRD offered his personal guarantee to secure the said loan. Since the loan was not serviced and repaid in time, the UBI initiated recovery proceedings vide O.A. No.653/2000 before the DRT-II, Delhi under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the Act for short). The DRT by an ex-parte order allowed the Original Application on 10.01.2002 against the principal borrower/debtor M/s Atul Food Products Limited (CD-1) and, inter alia, BRD (CD-3). Consequently, a recovery certificate was issued on 17.01.2002 for an amount of Rs.1,07,40,894/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 17.25% per annum with quarterly rests w.e.f. 06.12.2000 till realization, and costs of Rs.1,50,500/-. Upon service of the recovery certificate on the certificate debtors (CDs), including BRD (CD-3) in March 2002, BRD (CD-3) filed his affidavits dated 24.08.2004 and 28.09.2004 (vide Diary No.3060), wherein he stated that he, inter alia, owns the said property as his self acquired property. It appears that on 24.08.2004, the CDs, including BRD (CD-3), were restrained from creating any third party interest whatsoever to the detriment of the UBI in the immovable assets owned by the said CDs.

5. The aspect of recovery of the amounts found due by the DRT upon adjudication of the Original Application is dealt with in Section 29 of the Act, which provides that the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act) and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 (the `Rules' for short) as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications, as if the said provisions and the Rules refer