JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pavan S Godiawala for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. Nalini S Lodha for the respondent.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition which is in a narrow compass, the petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties today.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Nalini S Lodha waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.1.

4. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of prohibition to quash and set aside the entire recovery proceedings being RP No. 75 of 2011 and consequently thereof, the order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the Recovery Officer I- DRT- II, Ahmedabad.

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

5.1 The petitioner no.1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner no.1 is engaged in business of manufacturing of transmission line hardware upto 800kV.

5.2 The erstwhile- Dena Bank who advanced financial assistance in the year 1995 and 2005 to the petitioner no.1- Company has merged with the respondent- Bank of Baroda in the year 2019.

5.3 The petitioner no.1-Company was unable to pay the outstanding dues of the bank and therefore, the account of the petitioner no.1-Company was declared as NPA (Non-Performing Asset) in the year 2008 by the Dena Bank.

5.4 Proceedings under the The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act’) was initiated in the year 2009. The Original Application being OA No. 121 of 2010 was also filed before the DRT-II under the provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short ‘RDB Act’). A settlement was arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and the Bank in the year 2010 and the same was produced before the DRT- II. The Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed the following order dated 10.08.2011:-

“Applicant by Shri S.S. Panesar, Advocate Defendants by Shri K.H. Pachak, Advocate alongwith Shri Vipul Pranlal Vora, Defendant No. 2. The parties have jointly submitted that the matter is compromised between them and they have filed consent term with respect of payment of settlement amount.

The Defendant No. 2 is present in the Tribunal who is also the Director of Defendant No.-1. He has filed two separate authority letter in his favour drawn by Defendant No.-3 Smt. Avani Vipul Vora and Defendant No. 4 Smt. Nirmala Pranial Vora respectively. Both the authority letters are placed on record alongwith the consent term.

It is submitted that the settlement amount is required to be paid by Defendants by the year 2014-2015 and on deposit of the entire compromise amount, the claim in the OA will be stands satisfied. It is prayed that in view of the said consent terms on record, the Recovery Certificate be issued as per the consent terms.

In view of the fact that the Defendants have arrived at compromise with the Applicant bank as per the consent term, the Recovery Certificate be issued. The OA stands disposed of accordingly.”

5.5 It appears that the petitioner no.1 -Company did not abide by the consent terms and therefore respondent Bank was constrained to file recovery proceedings being RP No. 75 of 2011 before the Recovery Officer DRT-II. The petitioner has not disclosed with regard to the proceedings before the Recovery Officer since 2011 till date but has only referred to an order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Recovery Officer. At Annexure- B, wherein it is observed that as per the consent terms, the settlement amount was to be paid by 2014-2015. The order dated 25.08.2014 at Annexure-B reads as under:

“CH Bank advocate/officer present and filed an application (Ex. H/ 14) for issuance of attachment warrants for mortgaged immovable property mentioned in Schedule-B of the application. CDs not present.

It is observed from the records that Recovery C