JA Y ANT PATEL, J. In all the petitions, as common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Thakore for the petitioners in all the petitions, Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned Counsel for respondent No. I-Corporation in all the petitions, respondent No. 2 is joined in capacity as the recovery officer of the Tribunal who has exercised the statutory power pursuant to the judgment and A ward of the Tribunal, and therefore, no individual interest exist of him. Respondent No. 3 is the custodian of respondent No.4-Society, who has remained personally present and has made submission as recorded hereinafter. The presence of respondent No. 5 as such is not required since respondent No. 5 floated the scheme at the initial stage and in any case, no judgment and Award has been passed against respondent No. 5 by the Tribunal. The matter is heard for final disposal.

3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioners are the members of Viratnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to "the Society"), respondent No. 4 herein. The Society during the period when it was under the control of developer/builder/promoter, had taken loan from respondent No. I-Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "H.U.D.CO."). It appears that as per the scheme of the Society, all residential units were constructed during the period of 1993 and they were two types, viz. A-type and B-type. The cost of A-type was fixed at Rs. 65,000/-, whereas B-type was fixed at Rs. 95,000/-. As per the petitioners, the scheme was floated by respondent No. 5 viz. Kalikund Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "developer") and the members concerned in B-type had to pay Rs. 25,000/- and the remaining amount of loan was to be treated as of Rs. 70,000/- payable by the concerned member in instalment. As per the petitioners, they contributed Rs. 25,000/- and the remaining amount of about Rs. 69,400/-/Rs. 70,000/- was to be made available from the loan of H. U.D.CO. and to be paid by the petitioners in instalments. The pertinent aspect is that the loan was to be procured by the Society from H.U.D.CO.and not by the petitioners concerned in their individual capacity. As per all the petitioners, they continued to make the payment of the instalments and there was some default. The District Registrar exercised the power for appointment of Custodian in place of the Managing Committee of the Society and at present, the Custodian, respondent No. 3 herein is holding the charge and the affairs of the Society. As the instalments were not being paid in time by all the members simultaneously and the loan remained unpaid, respondent No. 1 herein initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, (D.R.T.) for recovery of the amount of loan being O.A. No. 369 of 1998. In the proceedings before the D.R.T., the concerned members of the society, whose details were available with H. U. D. CO. were Joined as party defendants in the proceedings. However, the D.R.T., as per the judgment dated 20-2-2006, did not pass the award against the members in their individual capacity, nor against the builder/developer, but passed the order against the Society, its Chairman and the Secretary for Rs. 2,23,25,524-97 Ps. with the simple interest @ 12% p.a. from 30-12-1998 until realization. It has also been ordered that the applicant therein (H.U.D.CO.) shall be entitled to sell the mortgaged property for realization of the certified dues. It appears that based on the said judgment and order of the Tribunal, the recovery proceedings came to be initiated by H.U.D.CO. against the Society being Recovery Proceedings No. 68 of 2006 and the whole property of the Society was contemplated to be sold by public auction and for such purpose, a notice was also issued, and at that stage, the petitioners have approached to this Court for challenging such action of issuing notice so far as they relate to their tenement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document